Re: Novice Questions

[Valeriy E. Ushakov]

On Wed, Apr 14, 1999 at 08:29:10PM +0400, Colin Klipsch wrote:

>     I must be missing some simplification, but my trials with "extend"
>     and "export" haven't worked.  Is there a way to define a whole
>     batch of symbols, all commonly dependent on the same package, but
>     without qualifying each definition individually?

Package your definitions, import necessary stuff, export your stuff
and @Use the package.  E.g.

    import @BasicSetup
    export @Para @SeePage
    def @MyUtils
    @Begin

      macro @Para { @PP }

      def @SeePage right x { see address@hidden x} }

    @End @MyUtils

    @Use { @MyUtils }
    

>     And just as a general issue, Lout's scoping model is still unclear
>     to me.  Is there such a thing as a "global" or "document-wide"
>     namespace?  If not, how are symbols scoped?  Can I define global
>     functions as well as functions local to a chapter or section?

Lout uses traditional static (lexical) scoping.  Modula-2 pops to mind
(as it has nested functions and modules), but unlike Modula-2 you can
import/export from any scope, there's no distinct concept of module.

Check list archives at http://www.ptc.spbu.ru/~uwe/lout/list.html
I posted a short example that demonstrates some scoping rules (search
for a message `Re: Changing parameters midstream').

HTH.

SY, Uwe
-- 
address@hidden                         |       Zu Grunde kommen
http://www.ptc.spbu.ru/~uwe/            |       Ist zu Grunde gehen