Package for define-simple-class

[Jocelyn Paine]

Yes, I'd noticed that too (classes defined in this way being in the top
package), but assumed it was intended behaviour. It does mean that you can
end up with the define-simple-class calls writing large numbers of .class
files into the top level of your Java classes directory, which seems messy
to me, and also means that if you define the same simple class in two
different modules (which I have done, intending the classes just to be
local to the modules), you'll get a clash. Would it be possible for
define-simple-class to create an inner class of the module instead, or
isn't that sensible?

Jocelyn Paine
http://www.ifs.org.uk/~popx/
+44 (0)7768 534 091 


On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Per Bothner wrote:

> Chris Dean wrote:
> > Ah, but that doens't work.  If I try either technique (1) or (2) Bar and
> > Spam are in the top level package.
> 
> Hm.  That seems wrong.  I'll take a look.
> -- 
> 	--Per Bothner
> per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/per/
> 
>