Comments on: Modules prototype released
The first draft of modules (namespaces) in the R3 alpha has been released. I wrote all-new documentation on modules, and it is now published to DocBase. In addition, DevBase holds the relevant source code files (mezz-load and mezz-instrinsics).
After giving it a lot of thought, I've concluded that simpler is better when it comes to modules. We want any programmer, regardless of how skilled, to be able to use modules and safely create their own modules.
Hopefully, in the days/months/years ahead, we can keep this tiger well-behaved...
10 Comments Comments:
Peter Wood
16-Nov-2007 1:28:54 |
In the expectation that some modules will be pretty large, will there be any support for multi-file modules in Rebol? | Maarten
20-Nov-2007 1:52:17 |
Carl, the time for releasing has come then? From modules to a set of user modules that will be included by default will help the development of REBOL 3.0 tremendously.
And a good name for Rebol (remember the marketing discussion) would be Pearl: hard to open a shell to get one, but priceless once you succeed.
Keep up the great work! | Greg
20-Nov-2007 16:40:55 |
Pearl!? Very close to Perl, so that's really not a good marketing name! | -pekr-
21-Nov-2007 3:02:28 |
There was many suggestions, but I wonder if any will take off. From altMe, it could be altscript, or I also proposed FireSide, Rabbit (Neo, knock, knock, Neo wakes up, looks to his monitor and sees REBOL prompt there :-) | Marten
23-Nov-2007 14:13:07 |
Pearl. Unlike Perl, but much better.
You gotta love it. What a marketing phrase! | Carl Sassenrath
26-Nov-2007 14:01:10 |
Peter: for multi-file modules there are two approaches, depending on what you need:
1. you can build the module with a tool like prerebol so it is distributed as a single file, or:
2. within the module code, you can load additional modules into the same context (not just DO, but a method that changes the current context to allow for expansion.)
In addition, we can expand the header spec to accept a list of files that should be included as part of the module. Being part of the header allows it to be used reflectively by other tools and frameworks.
Note, however, that last point would come after 3.0 release.
| Carl Sassenrath
26-Nov-2007 14:02:15 |
Lol on Pearl name. Sorry. | Peter Wood
28-Nov-2007 10:15:15 |
Thanks, Carl
Expanding the header spec to accept a list of files sounds great....and worth the wait. | Jeff M
6-Dec-2007 13:42:15 |
Has there ever been thought to a centralized module base that can be done through Rebol (I'm thinking something like Ruby Gems)? | maxim oliver-adlhoch
3-Feb-2008 15:43:09 |
jeff:
At the devcon last year I had a chat with a few people about Revault.
unfortunately for the better part of last year, I was not able to do much programming, for personal reasons. And thus revault has been asleep for a while.
There are quite a lot of people interested in the idea and even some volunteers for managing it, and even hosting it.
The idea was to do more than just a central file storage, but hosting teams and organisations able to review code, stamp approvals, and organise "sets" and compilation of modules and even single function submissions and such.
I am comming back to programming in the next few weeks, so will again restart the initative...
I even had the site designed and forms for submission working.
time to get that online and organised. |
Post a Comment:
You can post a comment here. Keep it on-topic.
|
