Re: Namespaces, part 2

2004-10-05 Thread Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon
Jeff Clites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Oct 4, 2004, at 9:58 PM, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote: > > You can have "the current namespace" actually be [ ::Foo::Bar::Baz, > > ::Foo::Bar, ::* ] (or, for the last one, whatever the namespace that > > @*ARGS and friends are in is called), so that the

Re: Namespaces, part 2

2004-10-05 Thread Jeff Clites
On Oct 4, 2004, at 9:58 PM, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote: Tim Bunce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Now, with that out of the way, let's talk about overlaid namespaces. I don't think I ever read a description of what the purpose of this was. I get the "what" but not the "why". Without the "why" it's

Re: Namespaces, part 2

2004-10-05 Thread Jeff Clites
On Oct 4, 2004, at 8:25 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote: Okay, since we've got the *basic* semantics down (unified namespace, namespace entries get a post-pended null character) I'll ask again, what about subs? Do they get name-mangled too? $Px = find_global [key; key; key], 'name' As Leo pointed out in

Re: Namespaces, part 2

2004-10-05 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Next I want to add in the op variants: > $Px = find_global [key; key] > $Px = find_global $Px, [key; key] > $Px = find_global $Py, 'name' I've already proposed some time ago that these variants of namespace manipulation aren't really necessar

Re: Namespaces, part 2

2004-10-04 Thread Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon
Tim Bunce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Now, with that out of the way, let's talk about overlaid namespaces. > > I don't think I ever read a description of what the purpose of this was. > I get the "what" but not the "why". Without the "why" it's hard to > critique the "how". Clearly I'm not Dan

Re: Namespaces, part 2

2004-10-04 Thread Tim Bunce
On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 11:25:47AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: > Okay, since we've got the *basic* semantics down (unified namespace, > namespace entries get a post-pended null character) it's time for the > ops to handle them, as well as some extended semantics. I agree with Larry when he said "

Re: Namespaces, part 2

2003-12-17 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > load_global $P1, ['foo'; 'bar'] '$baz' > load_global $P2, ['foo'; 'bar'] '$xyzzy' > The difference there being that, rather than having two separate > constant keys we have one constant key and two string constants. This > should result in less me

RE: Namespaces, part 2

2003-12-16 Thread Chris Shawmail (E-mail)
> From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 6:56 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Namespaces, part 2 > > load_global $P1, ['foo'; 'bar'] '$baz' > load_global $P2, ['foo'; 'bar'] '$xyzzy' I'm not at all familiar with the intricacies of Parrot inter