[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Changing @Use semantic
From: |
Jeff Kingston |
Subject: |
Re: Changing @Use semantic |
Date: |
Tue, 08 Sep 1998 09:36:56 +1000 |
Uwe wrote:
------------------------
I thought about something like
@SysInclude { book } # document type
@SysInclude { tables } # @IncludeAndUse for tab
@SysInclude { diagrams } # @IncludeAndUse for diag
@SysInclude { graphs } # @IncludeAndUse for graph
------------------------
Jeff's response:
This reduces the number of setup files to the number of packages,
which is an improvement I agree. It's also a better design than
what we have now, in that new packages can be added without
modifying existing setup files.
The implementation would be very easy. Just allow @Use
to be interleaved with top-level definitions (perhaps insisting
that its scope-opening effect not come into force until after
the last definition). Then (e.g.) file diagrams becomes
@SysInclude { diag }
@Use { @DiagramPrint
# the usual myriad options
}
The main disadvantage I see with this is that users have to
get a separate setup file every time they want to modify the
setup of some package. I think it's very convenient to have
all setup information in a single file (one can even put one's
definitions in the current setup files, by replacing the
@Include { mydefs } line with them).
I wonder what others think about this issue of a setup file
per package vs. a single setup file.
Jeff