On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 00:02 +0200, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 19:37 -0400, Mark E. Mallett wrote:
The best I can make out is that import and export coordinate through
some sort of import/export namespace (as contrasted with global
namespace, which it really isn't):
This is my understanding as well.
one option here is to get rid of export, and instead do it as an option
to the "include" action.
include :export ["foo", "bar"] "myscript";
(the specified variable names should be constant strings, ie. without
variable expansions, to reduce the number of exploding head incidents.)
Yes, constant strings are better here.
And that in turn makes me wonder, why not just use
a reserved namespace (like "include.") and use "set" to do those
manipulations? (Which is similar to what you said re 'global' only more
in line with what I read into what import/export is trying to do.)
You'd have to start calculating namespaces in the variable names... I'm
not a great fan of the namespace idea.
Kjetil's idea is an interesting, funky subroutine system. Would the
included script still need to explicitly import the exported variables,
or would we simply drop the import keyword entirely?
The proposal seems workable; I could go for this, too. Toss a coin?
Aaron