Tom clued me in that I was one who originally opposed 'import', and reading back over my reasons I think perhaps they're still valid:- Our import would behave differently than Java's, so it seems better to use include_package and include_class to differentiate them
- 'import' could easily conflict
On Wednesday 10 May 2006 08:26 pm, Charles O Nutter wrote:
> - In most cases, there will be a local filesystem involved
1) I have definate plans to try an applet
2) classes in jar files are not in the local filesystem.
> - We only look in one classloader even now, which should delegate to
> classl
- In most cases, there will be a local filesystem involved
- We only look in one classloader even now, which should delegate to
classloaders higher in the hierarchy anyway. Plus, we only need names
of classes.
- We can fall back on the "slow" way if anything fails.
On 5/10/06, David Corbin <[EMAI
That example looks very flawed to me. It's assuming there's local file system
involved in holding the classes. Not only that, but you can have classes in
one package available from multiple different class loaders
On Wednesday 10 May 2006 06:47 pm, Charles O Nutter wrote:
> As an aside, here'
As an aside, here's an interesting code snippit for loading all
classes in a given package. Basically, you just ask the classloader
for a resource for the package, and then iterate over contents. Might
be a good way to make import "foo.*" work as expected.
http://www.jonpeck.com/forum/viewtopic.p
I wouldn't mind an alias, and we could probably jury-rig import
"foo.*" to work at least as poorly as the old method of including a
package.
- Charlie
On 5/10/06, David Corbin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 10 May 2006 07:14 am, David Corbin wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 May 2006 02:38 am,
On Wednesday 10 May 2006 07:14 am, David Corbin wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 May 2006 02:38 am, Charles O Nutter wrote:
> > Can anyone remember why we decided to use include_class instead of
> > import? It suddenly occurred to me today that import is both shorter
> > and more precise, since we're reall
On Wednesday 10 May 2006 02:38 am, Charles O Nutter wrote:
> Can anyone remember why we decided to use include_class instead of
> import? It suddenly occurred to me today that import is both shorter
> and more precise, since we're really importing a Java class into the
> current namespace.
I suspe
