incubator-lucy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Wellnhofer <>
Subject Re: [lucy-dev] New branch LUCY-215-cf-extensions
Date Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:47:56 GMT
On 25/03/2012 19:02, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Nick Wellnhofer<>  wrote:
>> I used a flag ('is_included') and didn't go with the CFCFile pointer
>> approach.
> Would make more sense to use a flag for "is_tangible" instead of
> "is_included"?  What if the user provides the same directory via both
> add_include_dir() and add_source_dir()?
>      $hierarchy->add_source_dir('src');
>      $hierarchy->add_include_dir('src');
> That would presumably set the "is_included" flag for any classes found in that
> dir, and inappropriately prevent the generation of the parcel/boot/etc. C
> code.

My plan is to handle file or class name clashes by ignoring files or 
classes from the include dir. This should do the right thing if you 
rebuild an already installed extension. I don't understand why someone 
would want to use the same directory for sources and includes, but in 
this case, the add_include_dir should have simply no effect.

>> Then the whole autobinding stuff doesn't work correctly yet. I only had a
>> quick glance at the relevant code, but it seems that some parts of Clownfish
>> are still hardcoded to Lucy.
> I see you've been working on this today and will likely solve the problem if
> you haven't already.

Yes, this is solved.

> If we make that change, we are almost ready to junk  (The only
> remaining task is to rework init_autobindings() so that it happens within the
> "Lucy" package and gets invoked from within

+1 for junking


View raw message