Re: Are STOP and INIT good names? (was Re: [PATCH pod/perlmod.pod 5.005_63] Special Blocks For Less Than Gurus)

[Gurusamy Sarathy <gsar@ActiveState.com>]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2000 19:40:02 EST, John Macdonald wrote:
>Either of the last two seems reasonable, but the first does not make
>sense.  It has a synonym for completion preceeding a synonym for
>preparation.

Only because you insist on looking at it as one big phase rather than
two different phases. :-)

>              Only the internals steeped few who will understand.

I still fail to grok the worry here.  Anybody who'll be using the
compiler in future had better understand that "compile time" and
"run time" are two different phases.

As Larry said, perhaps people who won't understand will never need
to know, because they won't ever use it.

>I like the {BEGIN,END}::{PARSE,RUN} idea; especially with Damian's
>backward compatibility addition that BEGIN is equivalent to
>BEGIN::PARSE, END is END::RUN, and INIT is BEGIN::RUN.

The only problem I have with this is that it creates more "magic"
namespaces like "CORE" and "SUPER", without a good reason for
doing so.  IOW, BEGIN_PARSE, END_RUN would do equally well--there's
no real cause for making it look like it's in a namespace.

But then, putting underscores in there is also setting a precedent
that I'm not really sure about.  I have always tacitly ass_u_med that
names with underscores weren't reserved for keywords.


Sarathy
gsar@ActiveState.com

---

Follow-Ups from:

Larry Wall <larry@wall.org>

References to:

John Macdonald <jmm@pickering.elegant.com>

---

[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Top&Search][Original]

---