I've looked at the proposal, and you will see it. Today you wouldn't because there are no namespaces and thus no conflicts.
I agree we need namespaces, I just think we can do better, both in looks and in functionality. It's nothing against Goeran, just as I told him, I think his Delta's thing is right on the money. I just think this is really going to "give us only enough rope...."
On 9/18/07, Ramon Leon ramon.leon@allresnet.com wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Jason Johnson Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 9:10 AM To: Ron@usmedrec.com; The general-purpose Squeak developers list Subject: Re: Quick comparison of two Namespaces proposals
Oh no, are people really so strongly for ::? It make source code look absolutely awful. The period looks a thousand times better, but I don't think there is a non-ambiguous way to do it.
Maybe you should look at Gorans proposal first. In general, :: would separate the prefix from the class name in such a way that the tools can hide Kernel:: except when there's ambiguity, or in file outs. Formalizing prefixes that we all currently do by convention anyway while keeping the simplicity of a single global namespace and avoiding the need for imports. It's actually a nice proposal and :: doesn't look bad at all, since you'll hardly ever see it.
Ramon Leon