Re: Registries [2]

Daniel Wallin <[email protected]> writes:

> At 01:10 2003-07-28, David Abrahams wrote:
>>Daniel Wallin <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> >>The way I envisioned it:
>> >>
>> >>     module X is loaded; loading_count = 1
>> >>
>> >>     module X's initialization function imports converters from module
>> >>     Y, which causes Y to be loaded and initialized
>> >
>> > This might be possible in python, but we can't generally force another
>> > module to load. At least it isn't possible for luabind.
>>
>>Seriously?  Lua doesn't give you everything you need in order to
>>invoke lua code, including code which would load a module?
>
> Yes it does, but:
>
>     Converters are not associated with a lua state, so we don't
>     necessarily have access to one at the import stage.
>
>     There is no real standardized way of loading modules, so even
>     if we could call a lua function that does the loading it doesn't
>     mean we would call the right one.

OK, fair enough.

>> > Right, module's in luabind isn't really like modules in python.
>> > It's possible to have multiple "modules" per extension
>>
>>Likewise Python.
>>
>> > and also unnamed modules which are placed directly in the global
>> > namespace.
>>
>>Err, I think you mean "extensions not associated with a module which
>>place their definitions into the global namespace", right?  What is a
>>module, after all, if not a namespace?
>
> No actually I meant what I wrote. :) I was talking about the 'module'
> type in luabind, which is only a top-level alias for namespace_.
>
>     module(L)
>     [
>        def("f", &f)
>     ];
>
> This places "f" in the global namespace. So what I'm saying is that
> we can't use the name passed to module() as an identifier.

OK.  What's 'L'?

>> > I think I would like to keep the extension identifier separate from
>> > the identifiers the user may or may not use for their modules.
>>
>>Fine, we can do that in the core if you really perceive an advantage
>>(though I question whether the flexibility is worth the complication).
>>It would seem perverse for the Python layer to do anything other than
>>lock the name of an extension to the name of its module.
>
> Ok. So in BPL the central registry could associate the extensions with
> all the names of the modules it defines, right?

No, just the one top-level module it defines.  Every extension has an
entry point called extern "C" void init<module-name>() which is used
to do initialization.  It's <module-name> that counts.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01