No registered users in community xowiki
in last 10 minutes
in last 10 minutes
Re: [Xotcl] Re: XOTcl is great!!
From: Kristoffer Lawson <setok_at_fishpool.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 16:04:54 +0300 (EEST)
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Neil Madden wrote:
> Kristoffer Lawson wrote:
>>
>> That is two fine. I would prefer to have lots of related classes being part
>> of the same Tcl package. For that, I have to build a stub package which
>> then includes the rest in the appropriate order (or using some kind of
>> sub-packaging).
>
> You should be able to handle this with a custom pkgIndex.tcl file. I would
> personally opt for the fine-grained packaging mechanism though, for more
> flexibility.
Yeah, a custom pkgIndex would be a good idea too. I'm not a big fan of the
fine-grained mechanism myself. I prefer to just say 'I want this package
and all the classes that go with it', instead of listening all the classes
I will happen to need. I know some people do that in Java too, but I just
find it grows into a long mess with time.
/ http://www.fishpool.com/~setok/
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 16:04:54 +0300 (EEST)
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Neil Madden wrote:
> Kristoffer Lawson wrote:
>>
>> That is two fine. I would prefer to have lots of related classes being part
>> of the same Tcl package. For that, I have to build a stub package which
>> then includes the rest in the appropriate order (or using some kind of
>> sub-packaging).
>
> You should be able to handle this with a custom pkgIndex.tcl file. I would
> personally opt for the fine-grained packaging mechanism though, for more
> flexibility.
Yeah, a custom pkgIndex would be a good idea too. I'm not a big fan of the
fine-grained mechanism myself. I prefer to just say 'I want this package
and all the classes that go with it', instead of listening all the classes
I will happen to need. I know some people do that in Java too, but I just
find it grows into a long mess with time.
/ http://www.fishpool.com/~setok/