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

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

> Hey, I can live with that.  It makes the distinction
> that I was wanting, would have sufficient information
> in it for import() to allow me to have "dots" in
> my file names, I think.

That would only be true if we change the delimiter. I'd like to have a
conversation with Odysseas about this one.

> And, of course, you are correct about the economy
> of a single call to "load a package" without
> have to worry about that package's inventory/names
> changing from underneath you.  Yes, I like that.
>
> Right now, I am a bit confused, because I don't know
> what the intentions of Alex are, and if this would
> fit in the grand schems.  It seems to me, however,
> that your idea is good, and aligns itself with what
> Alex is thinking.  I also like your syntax better
> than what I suggested as a kneejerk, that is, your
> syntax only requires one argument to import().
> That is better.

If you are talking about Andreas file: resource handler, I don't see the
point.

Why not just use include_once in that case?

That is a separate issue from the import package delimiter, which would
still prevent you from doing an import on My.File.With.Lots.Of.Dots.php

> It still won't allow me, I think, to name my
> layout files *.layout, my masters *.master, and
> so forth.  Somehow, I still would like to retain
> that possibility.  I also still feel that within
> the system, for the only example that Alex/Odysseas
> gave where *.php is "necessary", like using
> the filter xml2php, there could be a solution.

That is only for the moment.

Soon, we will be filtering _all_ php code for language strings, maybe
comments, and I'm sure other stuff I haven't thought of yet - and that will
require us to have a mechanism for distinguishing php from xml and html fro
php, etc.

From a cursory discussion I had with odysseas, that would be possible
through a make-make system, but we're getting into esoterica at that point
:)

> That solution would be to put a "wrapping environment"
> around those operations by, say, appending ".php"
> before the operation, and stripping ".php" after
> the operation.

Can you qualify this a little more? What do you mean?

> Sure, this adds some overhead, but it is trivial.
> Right now, you cannot even have your files named
> *.PHP, or *.phtml, which is functionally identical
> to *.php, but gives my "need" a bit more force.
> Lordy, I hate the idea that, right now, I cannot
> name my files
>
> *.layout
>
> or as a partial compromise
>
> *.layout.php
>
> because it throws away the ability of easily
> constructing find(1) scripts or globbed
> arguments to any argument to any of the
> standard UNIX/Linux utilities needed for
> easy administration.  If I had to do things
> like name my files:
>
> file01Layout.php
> file07Master.php
> file09Module.php

How do you suggest we handle the fact that make must have implicit knowedge
about file extensions at build-time?

I'd like to hear what you think before responding.

> and the go sed(1) everywhere in my scripts,
> I would get very tired and irascable.  Er,
> I am already tired and irascable...
>
> Again, I like your suggestion.