On 11/30/06, Göran Krampe <goran@krampe.se> wrote:
 

But others
might benefit from at least *contemplating* that namespaces:

- Don't *have* to be hierarchical.

Well, this is just the next step in the evolution of namespaces. How long would it take before you go from:

Morphic::StringMorph

to

Morphic::Base::StringMorph

or

Squeak::Morphic::StringMorph
Croquet::Morphic::StringMorph
Tweak::MorphicCompatibility::StringMorph

or even

Squeak::Base::Graphics::Morphic::BasicMorphs::Text::StringMorph
(as opposed to any of the other 114 StringMorphs in a distributed Squeak environment...)

Arguably, we're not at that stage yet, and one-level Namespaces fix all our current problems. I've already been bitten by lack of Namespaces - I couldn't implement my own SocketStream because the name was already used.

- Don't *have* to use file/class/package level imports.


Like I mentioned earlier, I need this feature for securities' sake, but I'm probably going to implement a completely different Namespace system for my own use.

I'm quite impartial to how Namespaces are implemented in Squeak and I think your proposal is fine, provided that I can remove it later if it gets in my way. Currently this seems trivial, and if people don't start making unnecessary prolific use of the new Namespace syntax then I could still re-use most of the existing code.

So.. +1 to your proposal from me.

Michael.