Packages

>> So the suggestion is for the nice compiler to define the package from 
>> the directory hierarchy
> 
> 
> This might be done. But it is a good safety constrain. I had situations 
> when i targeted Nice compiler to the wrong directory. Should nicec 
> silently compile 'src.ru.glim' instead of 'ru.glim'? Package definition 
> might also help the compiler to find sources when it have multiple 
> source locations to look at. At least package definition should be left 
> as an optional constrain.

This is actually the current situation (package declaration can be omitted). 
But nicec wouldn't compile src.ru.glim, because it is only looking for certain 
package names (on the command line, or explicitely imported).


I've been thinking it could be useful to have one file per package, specifying 
package name, Nice package imports (and possibly exports), and package version 
(plus possibly more). This would also integrate with the package repository.

By the way, if people have (even small) libraries that could be shared, I 
would like to hear from them to test and lauch the package repository.

Cheers,

Daniel



-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click