[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Liberty-eiffel] [Fwd: Re: [libertyeiffel] tutorial loadpath in liberty.

From: Raphael Mack
Subject: [Liberty-eiffel] [Fwd: Re: [libertyeiffel] tutorial loadpath in]
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 23:06:26 +0200

Oh, this was the old list ;-(

-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Von: Raphael Mack <address@hidden>
Reply-to: address@hidden
An: address@hidden
Betreff: Re: [libertyeiffel] tutorial loadpath in
Datum: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 23:02:26 +0200


let me come back to this one here. Wouldn't it make sense to use the
current working directory as starting point for searching the root

Best regards,

Am Dienstag, den 28.05.2013, 20:04 +0200 schrieb Raphael Mack: 
> Hi there,
> Am Dienstag, den 21.05.2013, 05:59 +0200 schrieb Cyril ADRIAN: 
> > 2013/5/19 Raphael Mack <address@hidden>
> >         What is the use of this anyhow, couldn't we just drop the
> >         tutorial entry
> >         in 
> > 
> > 
> > Why? With the class lookup rules your application can have classes
> > with the same names, they would be loaded instead of those in the
> > tutorial (because they would be closer). And AFAIK there is no name
> > overlap between the tutorial and the standard library.
> > 
> Oh, this is harder than expected. We have name clashes within the
> tutorial - which makes problems for passing the class name on the
> command line ( cd Liberty/tutorial/agent && se c -o example1 EXAMPLE1) 
> and we have name clashes between class names and generic arguments in
> the std lib (see #114)
> Maybe it is better to have only local files for those
> tutorials which use classes in sub-directories (essentially any with
> more than one class) and copy those classes which are used also by tests
> to the test dir.
> Regards,
> Rapha

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]