[OpenSCAD] Openscad Indirect Functions

Richard Urwin soronlin+openscad at googlemail.com
Sun Oct 16 13:50:40 EDT 2016


I've used unified namespaces all my life; it's not [i]that[/i] confusing. In
my opinion it's more confusing to have two different things with the same
name. Granted it would be necessary to allow some route for backward
compatibility.

I don't like $ used in that way. We already have $fn and other special
variables, using $ for namespace resolution will lead to such monstrosities
as "f$$myspecial". What about ":", which is used in similar contexts in
other languages?

Is there a particular reason that a statement such as
foo = f:bar
cannot be handled without special decoration on the definition of bar? It is
recognisable as a reference rather than a call by not having the
parentheses. If it is done that way then the scope becomes more obvious --
it is the bar that is in scope when foo is defined, not the bar that is in
scope when foo is used.



--
View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/Convert-from-object-to-polygon-polyhedron-tp18522p18736.html
Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.




More information about the Discuss mailing list