Am Donnerstag, 19. Oktober 2006 23:19 schrieb Patrick R. Michaud: > So, here's the revised version of the code to create > the classes: > > .HLL 'pge', '' > > .sub __onload :load > $P0 = newclass 'Exp' [...] > $P0 = subclass 'Exp', 'Closure' > # ... > .end > > This code fails when run from parrot, because Parrot seemingly > already has a class named 'Closure': > > $ ./parrot ns.pir > Class Closure already registered! > current instr.: '__onload' pc 19 (ns.pir:9) > $ > > So, this brings me to my question: What is the official > "best practice" pattern for HLLs to create their own classes > such that we avoid naming conflicts with existing classes > in Parrot and other HLLs?
.HLL 'pge', '' is implying the toplevel namespace ['pge']. The C<newclass 'Exp'> therfore is created as ['pge';'Exp']. But you are subclassing that to an existing (because unqualified) 'Closure' name. IMHO this should look like this: .HLL 'pge', '' ... cl = newclass 'Exp' # ['pge'; 'Exp'] ... .namespace ['Exp'] # ['pge'; 'Exp'] ... scl = subclass 'Exp', ['Exp'; 'Closure'] # ['pge'; 'Exp'; 'Closure'] ... leo et ceterum censeo ... that .HLL and namspaces should be orthogonal concepts
