"Randall Sawyer" <sra### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> But, I've just been getting
> them out there so that we can all find the one made of tungsten.

That's the whole point of this thread.  And indeed perhaps none of them is
actually made of tungsten, but if we mix them in an alchemists way, we may
eventually get gold. :)

> some of those includes might call still more - "third
> level" - and so on.  That's where you might run into a naming issue.  Who
> wants to have to read all those other files?

No one wants naming conflicts:  they are bad, very bad.  That's why i
proposed having included items being local to the file including them.  And
it really doesn't seem much difficult to make the parser handle it that way
and aliases.

> I realize that the #ifndef() at the front of each include may interfere with
> this strategy.  (User includes "A.inc" and "B.inc" and "A.inc" includes
> "B.inc".

I believe such metaprogramming #ifdefs and whatnot should be in charge of
the parser, not the user.  If includes are local, there should be no need
for them.

Post a reply to this message