Why not '\' instead of '::' for modules?

[Justin]

I've been trying modules and the current syntax looks pretty ugly in my opinion, the '\' operator is what PB uses for these things, why not use it?

In many cases the full name is requied
MyMod::DoSomething() ;ugly
MyMod\DoSomething() ;nice and PB like

And how about 'Using' instead of 'UseModule'? Like in C#, and make it valid only in the current file?
It's EndUsing really necessary?

[STARGÅTE]

\ is for structures:

Code: Select all

Prototype Test()

Procedure Example()
	Debug "Hallo World!"
EndProcedure

Structure Example
	MyFunction.Test
EndStructure

Define Test.Example\MyFunction = @Example()

Test\MyFunction()

in this case you can create "modules" without module ^^

[skywalk]

Yes, I use prototypes in structures now.
Why does that prevent '\' as a module indicator? (Is there a name conflict with Structure & Module?)
Pros:
enables autocomplete with 1 keystroke instead of 2 '::'.
less clutter
Cons:
Module vs Structure does not jump out to reader.

[luis]

I've been trying modules and the current syntax looks pretty ugly in my opinion, the '\' operator is what PB uses for these things, why not use it?

Structures and see also the help for "interfaces".

And how about 'Using' instead of 'UseModule'?

Academically discussed here, maybe you can tag along -> http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... =3&t=55196

It's EndUsing really necessary?

UnuseModule ? It can be if you want to use UseModule instead of full qualifiers "::".

Code: Select all

DeclareModule x
 Declare foo()
EndDeclareModule

Module x
 Procedure foo()
  Debug "x"
 EndProcedure
EndModule

DeclareModule y
 Declare foo()
EndDeclareModule

Module y
 Procedure foo()
  Debug "y"
 EndProcedure
EndModule

UseModule x
foo()

UnuseModule x ; remove this and it doesn't work anymore

UseModule y
foo()

[uwekel]

I totally agree with this request.
+1 for \ instead of ::

[User_Russian]

Disagree!
Let it stay as it is now (using ::).
Using \ can cause a conflict with the structures and interfaces! Why do it?
And also, will be confusing. You will need to think a module, structure, or interface.
Separator :: uniquely specify that this module.

[uwekel]

But at least a single character would be nice.

[Danilo]

Using \ can cause a conflict with the structures and interfaces! Why do it?
And also, will be confusing. You will need to think a module, structure, or interface.

There are languages that use the point '.' for everything. Structures, Namespaces, Interfaces, Classes, ...
So PB could also use the backslash for everything. If there is a name conflict, the compiler could say so.
Using the same name for structures, interfaces, modules could just be disabled and is not recommended
anyway. You can't use the same name for structures and interfaces anyway (and it is not a problem...):

Code: Select all

Interface theName
EndInterface

Structure theName
EndStructure

DeclareModule theName
EndDeclareModule

...so it could be the same for Modules to prevent name conflicts... and use the backslash for access to all members of structures/interfaces/modules!? More BASIC style, and more PB style.

IMHO it wouldn't be a big problem to not use the same names for modules and structures/interfaces.

[User_Russian]

But at least a single character would be nice.

Really so hard to double-press the button?

There are languages that use the point '.' for everything. Structures, Namespaces, Interfaces, Classes

So what?
You forget that in many languages, for classes, and name space, it is used by two colons (::).

[Shield]

I'd also be in favor of '\' but it's not going to change anyway.
I'm just happy they chose '::' and not '_' which was announced...

[blueznl]

Brrrr.... I'm an oldie and have been using things like busbar_n and busbar_nr for ages... I would have to rewrite ALL my code if they would have used _ !!!!!

Even though I can see the charm of \ I can live with ::

[uwekel]

Really so hard to double-press the button?

Let us imagine that 25000 programmers have 5000 occurrences only, we would save 125 million keystrokes all together

[Demivec]

Really so hard to double-press the button?

Let us imagine that 25000 programmers have 5000 occurrences only, we would save 125 million keystrokes all together

If you imagine harder, doing search and replace would eliminate 124925000 of those keystrokes.

[freak]

If one character more (or one declare for that matter) is too much for you then you haven't understood the purpose of modules. Modules are about writing better (better readable, better testable, better maintainable, etc) code, not shorter code.

[uwekel]

The sense of modules is out of question and do not - of course - depend on these single or double characters. I just think that a single character is better than two. That's all. But i think there is no single character left which is easy to reach on the keyboard