Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
Machinoid

#include and language design

This topic is 5440 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
The problem is that you introduce language artefacts that are not necessary for problem solving. That is a Bad Thing™.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the #include mechanism. The problem is C and C++'s requirement of forward declarations, which have influenced the way preprocessors are written. Coupled with a largely single-pass build process, the result is a bit of a mess.

This could be cleaned up transparently with no language alterations. I've considered doing it as a proof of concept, but I'm too lazy.

I do agree it could be cleaned up, however if you're to lazy to bother doing a proof of concept...then we'll just have muer do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
Quote:
Original post by Washu
I do agree it could be cleaned up, however if you're to lazy to bother doing a proof of concept...then we'll just have muer do it.
Heheheheheh.

Actually... I'll get back to you on this. It might be fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Namespaces provide logical modules (in UML, these are called packages). You seem to want to make physical modules (packages), which, in my opinion, is a step backwards for reasons Oluseyi described.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!