MathGroup Archive 2003

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: Re: shadow-proofing a package

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg42734] Re: [mg42718] Re: shadow-proofing a package
  • From: Dr Bob <drbob at bigfoot.com>
  • Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:10:39 -0400 (EDT)
  • References: <bfiu78$j8a$1@smc.vnet.net> <200307230425.AAA29123@smc.vnet.net>
  • Reply-to: drbob at bigfoot.com
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

Why would Selwyn or I write a package that depended on a symbol we were 
likely to use for storing a 4-week computation?  Do we really look like 
idiots?

On the other hand, that begs the question: why worry about shadowing at 
all, if we can, instead, choose good names that aren't likely to conflict?

Bobby

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:25:11 -0400 (EDT), Jens-Peer Kuska 
<kuska at informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> say you have stored the result of a 4 week computation in one
> of the variables that are removed by the package.
>
> Just load the package and destroy your work without a warning -- sounds 
> great !
>
> Regards
> Jens
>
> Selwyn Hollis wrote:
>>
>> The following occurred to me as a way to prevent the shadowing problem:
>>
>> Before BeginPackage["blah`blahblah`"] put
>>
>> Remove@@( StringJoin["Global`",#]&/@
>> Intersection[Names["Global`*"],
>> {"name1", "name2", ... for all symbols defined in the package}] )
>>
>> This seems to work well. But surely there must be some downside to it,
>> or else it would already be the recommended way of doing things. What
>> am I overlooking here?
>>
>> -----
>> Selwyn Hollis
>> http://www.math.armstrong.edu/faculty/hollis
>
>



-- 
majort at cox-internet.com
Bobby R. Treat


  • Prev by Date: Re: Mathematica and RedHat 9
  • Next by Date: Re: Point Symbols...
  • Previous by thread: Re: shadow-proofing a package
  • Next by thread: Re: shadow-proofing a package