Re: [binarycloud-dev] Another kneejerk suggestion for import()

[alex b. <en...@tu...>]

> What about this syntax to ship enough information to
> import() in order to distinguish "package" from "file":
>
> import('a_file_name')
>
> for importing a "true file object", and
>
> import('package_name:object')
>
> for importing an "object" from a "package"????

Again, how do I know where to get my file from, _without_ having a map?

and the latter is exactly what we do, minus the ":"

> See, this would suit me.  Maybe not everybody.  I NEVER
> USE A COLON in file names.  Somebody might.  But, I
> would argue that in the great corpus of UNIX conventions,
> using dots in file names probably prevails over using
> colons in file names by at least 100 to 1.  Hell, I
> don't really know that, but I bet you agree...

I suppose we could switch to
binarycloud::core::Perm or something, but I would prefer not to.
this notation:
binarycloud.core.Perm is clean, simple, and easy to write.

> Boff.  I am stopping now with this struggling with
> this problem for the time being and go make my modules
> work on the new r2, and wait for you to get out of
> bed and respond.  Maybe you have already fixed the
> problem in your dreams out there in PST.

I think I'd like odysseas' opinion on the "dots or colons or some other
character as package delimiter" thing.

This is one of the rare cases where I think I am comfortable saying, we need
to have a standard - not a complex one - just, "can't use multiple "." in
filenames" - because we must be able to have some implicit knowledge about
files going through make.

I will play with the "." -> ":" or "::" change.

_alex