🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <251@smds.UUCP> rh@smds.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
> In article <Y+=69_G@xds13.ferranti.com>, peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> > I have been facing a similar problem in a series of extension packages
> > for TCL...  I've been thinging of doing something like this (in TCL):

> > 	module modulename {
> > 		import othermodule symbol...
> > 		...
> > 		export symbol...
> > 	}

> So far, so good.  However I don't know how you are using the word "module".

Good point. "Module" here refers to a collection of symbols with a common
scope. No control flow commonality is implied. Perhaps I should say "package"?
Or borrow from forth and call it a "vocabulary".

> > Because of compatibility considerations, all existing symbols are assumed
> > to be in a root module "tcl" which is imported implicitly. 

> Ouch.  Does this mean that there can only be one instance of a symbol?

No, it means that symbols already defined in existing TCL code (such as proc
or ErrorInfo) are in the root vocabulary.

> If I understand this correctly you are working with a single namespace.

Existing TCL has a single namespace. I'm extending this to a group of
namespaces. Control flow doesn't come into it.
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
+1 713 274 5180.   'U`
peter@ferranti.com