[chuck-users] Is there plans for something like "include"
gewang at CS.Princeton.EDU
Thu Jan 5 14:21:22 EST 2006
> I was wondering if there were plans to implement a method for
> "including" a file in another? Something on the order of C's include,
> or Java's import?
There are plans (and even some implementation) for a name-based automatic
file look-up (similar to Java class resolution). It is currently on hold
to make way to implement other features. We have yet to invent/purloin
a package-level include mechanism. It (or another include/import method)
will make its way into the language (in a few months hopefully).
> Basically, I have some objects, that I would like to work with accross
> several files. and rather than having to explicitly put the code into
> each file.
So far, there is the following (ghetto) method:
1. each .ck may contain one 'public' class (like java) - put important
classes into their own .ck files (as 'public class').
2. 'running' such a .ck file will add the class to the type system, which
subsequent code can instantiate.
foo.ck : contains public class Foo definition
bar.ck : cotnains public class Bar definition
par.ck : uses Foo and Bar
as long as foo.ck and bar.ck gets compiled/run before par.ck, things
> chuck foo bar par
3. instead of running foo and bar on the command line every time, you can
write one addition .ck file which runs the dependencies:
// run foo.ck bar.ck
machine.add( "foo.ck" );
machine.add( "bar.ck" );
if you want, you can also add par.ck from this file so you end up running
one .ck file.
- currently, once a public class is added, it lives in the global
namespace and can not be modified/removed.
- machine.add( ... ) happens explicitly at runtime and is different from
a static include. therefore putting machine.add( "foo.ck" ) at the top
of a program (par.ck) that uses Foo does not work.
Again, this method is really ghetto, but we hope it helps.
More information about the chuck-users