Hi all!
Lex Spoon lex@cc.gatech.edu wrote:
Just to toss in my votes:
- I am not sure that SM::Package is an improvement over SMPackage.
It does not look like a large improvement, anyway.
Not sure what you mean with "improvement". Visually?
- A general hierarchy is an improvement over one-level. If you have
a project with 1000 classes in it, then you need multiple namespaces within your project, and you want to group them under an umbrella identifier of your project. Without hieriarchical names, you will have to invent a prefix for all your namespace names....
I actually disagree. I don't think you need multiple namespaces if you have 1000 classes in the *same Project*. 1000 classes doesn't equal such a large team in practice - perhaps 10 developers? Not that hard to keep names unique IMHO. Remember that this isn't java - we don't need "namespaces" just to organize our classes - we have Categories for that.
Squeak itself is more than 1000 classes and we haven't seen any real issue in keeping the names within base Squeak unique, have we?
Finally - just because we allow Foo::Bar does not necessarily mean we want to have a "real" hierarchy and allow Foo::Boo::Bar. In fact, I would like to stay away from that and just use "buckets" - call it a one level hierarchy if you wish. Again, we have Categories for organisation - I don't see the need for having multiple levels of namespaces. And I really would like to understand exactly what semantics people think it has - it is not obvious to me as I have posted a few times now.
regards, Göran