Re: Defining a library in one file

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Hannes Mehnert <[email protected]> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA384
>
> Hi Carl,
>
> I appreciate that step forward.
>
> I'd consider naming the keywords "Use-Libraries" and "Use-Modules"
> (these are case-independent according to DRM anyways), and then limit
> the header to one occurrence of these keywords - similar to what
> Gwydion Dylan does/did for compatibility.
>

Thanks for the comments, Hannes.

I have no problem with Use-Modules and Use-Libraries, each of which may
span multiple lines.  It was a toss-up for me, and I chose the other way
somewhat arbitrarily.  Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure abeaumont said
he prefers plural headers as well.


>
> I would require each "Use-*" keyword to span over a single line, which
> is generally true for the file headers of Dylan files (see
> http://opendylan.org/books/drm/Dylan_Interchange_Format).
>
>
> I do not really see a reason for the module-exports header: I don't
> see these single-file Dylan applications to libraries (meaning: if you
> want to export something, use with make-dylan-app and have those files
> separately). But maybe I don't see everything here.
>

I don't see any reason not to have it.  As I say in the DEP there are
plenty of small libraries (which aren't "scripts") that can fit in one file
comfortably.  One case that I didn't think to mention was test suites!


>
> On the implementation side, it'll be challenging to convince Open
> Dylan to switch the home module within a single source file, but I'm
> sure we'll be smart enough to figure out how to do that.


I believe there are bugs in the IDE related to changing the name of a
module and/or library too, even with multi-file libraries, so I don't doubt
it.  :-)


> I would
> prefer to support it in the compiler, rather than generating temporary
> Dylan/lid files.
>

Yup, that suggestion was just to clarify the semantics.


> Cheers,
>
> Hannes
>
>
> On 17/02/2013 05:00, Carl Gay wrote:
> > Hi.  I would like to get feedback on a proposal for a way to define
> > Dylan libraries with a single file rather than the current minimum
> > three files: LID file, library file, main program file.  You can
> > read it
> > formatted<
> https://github.com/cgay/website/blob/single-file-library-dep/source/proposals/dep-0006.rst
> >
> >
> >
> and
> > reply here with your comments, or
> > plain<https://github.com/dylan-lang/website/pull/40/files>and
> > leave your comments directly in the document.  The latter requires
> > a github account.
> >
> > Thanks. -Carl
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________ hackers mailing
> > list [email protected]
> > https://lists.opendylan.org/mailman/listinfo/hackers
> >
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin)
>
> iQIcBAEBCQAGBQJRIPWSAAoJELyJZYjffCju5SAP/060BKiwigniuRXJjXwcFbvM
> 7lBWN0ZOLpdBLTHvX7L28La8RwzyWOgoxL+1/TFhNJk4l4M0016HNJCuPdCcPAmt
> 23yESEezjJxebF8yy5RyoYb/sSYkV4TTpihkHcxFSA1EZS7evJ2ZfuVPyz2PIl+H
> QzjIqJ+Eoq8x0vTIgKJ5syJA4/Egvo7MNyrzL3q+odvY8Ks9DSatMOeVBFDISRsN
> 2aapLes4sZ+4B+k7G9aiHP/EuY9772PXbYnJDroLxcC5VFmcq7WEpTUwqG46bXen
> fnpOdYeGx6eL9HZBcnbsR70wRuA8BBMYXd3/B4KBDKLEixF746lo3lPTydjOoS2S
> c4NtrPXSepXEXKM7MjmrTHZ08GVqSSYQbNHvxsgeNMZg1tMAi1Q6aIZlMWJA7tQd
> udoiR40fP8nssMD5YYsKffKbJnTFoPgQ01Kn9H3MWv9BRg10KGqA7wvwi1QE16aR
> HBlcY7/PGIxn6DBLipfnklFS879oERQzmF9m82FxjOcxP7zCbSMGJnEb5EM/Fp+3
> N0KSEjEQ2uLRbUUV1HjGoZ17siChbDLdzOQ42HGOs96sGv7jjIuDrXYZxcMtr0sk
> dNOTjrWwOeGujRBzcg8+hFGPblvMczXGGfwEvhS4dC9lgKLB2f4VSUELASxgHkQr
> n6AGXV9CzRb7C8lYVm1U
> =IsQR
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> hackers mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.opendylan.org/mailman/listinfo/hackers
>

_______________________________________________
hackers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opendylan.org/mailman/listinfo/hackers