Hi Göran.
This is probably going to be my last post on this issue because I want to spend more time actually coding stuff.
Hi!
Highly annoying - I had written a long reply and then it went poof into
bit heaven. Ok, one more go:
> * I also assume that to resolve conflicts of the namespace names
> themselves,
> the tools need to give the namespace a completely new name (which changes
> the source code as it's filed in), and to do this you'd need input from
> the
> user?
Yes, but I have a hard time seeing a solution to this without a registry.
> * Your proposal still involves the use of a global dictionary containing
> all
> global variables and classes. In computer science we learn that the use of
> global variables should be minimised, and your proposal certainly doesn't
> help us in this regard.
I disagree. I think this is just an implementation detail. If you can
improve it by making Namespace instances hold the Assocations instead of
using the trick I am using - then by all means - go ahead! It would be
cleaner implementation wise. But Andreas Raab strongly advised me to not
take on that "world of hurt" and I believed him.
> I'm not against your proposal, and it doesn't make the situation any worse
> than the current situation except for the filing out issue.
Given what I wrote above regarding filing out - do you still think it is
an issue? And also - does any OTHER solution do it any better? I don't
think so.