Chuck,
I agree with all this, but don't like the name #copy
#verbatimInclude
or
#verbatim-include
or
#plainInclude
or
#plain-include
would be better. Your thoughts?
On Thursday 07 June 2001 10:00, Chuck Esterbrook wrote:
> TS currently uses #parse and #include. The first groks
> the file, the second just copies the contents with no
> interpretation.
>
> I think the functionalities are good, but not the names.
>
> Consider the terms used by other languages:
> - SSI: include
> - IE/HTML: @import
> - Python: import
> - Objective-C: import
> - Modula: use
> - C/C++: include
>
> All of these languages have to read, lex, parse, bind,
> interpret/compile, etc. to make imports happen. But
> instead of naming the statement after a particular step
> of that process, they used a high level name (usually
> "include" or "import").
>
> That also points to another flaw in the #parse name. It
> could just as easily be named after any of the other
> various operations, for example #lex or #compile or
> #bind.
>
> Another difficulty is that with so many languages,
> including SSI, using #include for one thing, having it
> mean something else in TS will be confusing.
>
>
> I'd like to rename #parse to #include and #include to
> #copy. So that would be #include and #copy.
>
> My reason for #include over #import is that most
> languages see to use #include for actually including
> contents (such as an SSI include or a C header file) and
> "import" for referring to something loaded, but not made
> part of output (Python). Also, page designers might
> recognize #include from SSI.
>
>
> -Chuck
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Webware-devel mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-devel
_______________________________________________
Webware-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-devel
