🚀 go-pugleaf

rae@alias.com (Reid Ellis) writes:

>Scott Layson Burson <gyro@kestrel.edu> writes:
>|Suppose we were to introduce a keyword "module" with a simple syntax:
>|   module Foo {
>|     // ... declarations
>|   }

>Ron Guilmette <rfg@NCD.COM> writes:
>|how about just using `class <identifier> static { ... }' rather than
>|requiring `module <identifier>'?

>Niklas Hallqvist <niklas@appli.se> writes:
>|How about:
>|
>|default class CLASSNAME-LIST {
>|  // code goes here;
>|}

>I'd like something similar to Ron's idea, but the other way around:

>static class <identifier> {
>	// ...
>}

Aha, you misunderstood me...
My syntax wasn't invented for the declaration of a "module",
but rather as a replacement for the Ada "use"-statement.  I like
Ron's original syntax for the declaration, your syntax has the problem
of misunderstanding the definition:

static class X {
  // ...
} foo;

which defines "foo" to be a static instance of X with file scope.  In your proposal X would be an instance of a "module" X with global scope.  Please,
look at this example to understand my thoughts:

class PersistantObjectSystem static {
  class Storable {
    // ...
  }
  Storable* fetch():
}

void foo()
{
  default class PersistantObjectSystem {
    Storable *x = fetch(); // Means:
    // PersistantObjectSystem::Storable *x = Persistant::fetch();

  }
}
void foo (@x());
-- 
Niklas Hallqvist	Phone: +46-(0)31-40 75 00
Applitron Datasystem	Fax:   +46-(0)31-83 39 50
Molndalsvagen 95	Email: niklas@appli.se
S-412 63  GOTEBORG, Sweden     mcsun!sunic!chalmers!appli!niklas