On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 01:20:44AM -0500, Abdulaziz Ghuloum wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2006, at 12:51 AM, MichaelL_at_frogware.com wrote:
>> I was thinking, for example, of a library like SSAX that's too big
>> to fit in one file. If you accept that the proper course would be
>> to break SSAX into pieces and import all pieces as libraries then
>> this approach might be ok. Personally, I'd like to know that my
>> internal helper libraries are private and completely shielded from
>> public view. But maybe that's just me.
>
> You might be in a minority group, but you're certainly not alone.
> If I had to make a choice between the two, I would pick local
> modules (like Chez's modules) over global libraries any time of the
> day. I believe in libraries being a way of publishing a coherent
> set of related procedures and macros that serve a particular purpose
> in one bundle called a library.
>
> Internal to a library, there must be ways of structuring code and
> controlling visibility without having to resort to polluting the
> global name space of libraries.
+1
--
Trent Buck, Student Errant
Received on Wed Nov 15 2006 - 09:24:15 UTC