[DGD]DGD extension interface, some thoughts

[Ludger Merkens]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Felix A. Croes wrote:

> Michael Bergbauer <michael.bergbauer at gmx.net> wrote:
> 
> >[...]
> > what happens if I install two packets, that each defines one new kfun? Then I
> > have two config-functions. That is what John wanted to point out, if I got it
> > correct (if not, then I'll point it out ;))
> >
> > We really should find a better method then just redefining one method, because
> > you otherwise, you always have to tweak around in the sources when adding an
> > additional module, and noone will benefit of it. It should make installing new
> > packets easier (than the current patch method!), and not more compilcated.
> 

One (clumsy) solution would be to register a prefix for all kfuns with a
module. (e.g. math_, or net_), calling from lpc would demand to use the
full name. A problem will be if you need lpc glue, on the other hand ---
if you write this glue you can use e.g. #defines to react to the prefix
you installed.

nevertheless --- the problem dworkin mentioned, "redefining the same kfun
twice is a bug" is not solved with this. Perhaps it would help if you
could call the "old" kfun from the new kfun (similar to ::). 

> All right, but I am going to stay out of that discussion :)  From DGD's
> point of view, it is just one function.
> 
> Regards,
> Dworkin
> 
> List config page:  http://list.imaginary.com/mailman/listinfo/dgd
> 


List config page:  http://list.imaginary.com/mailman/listinfo/dgd