Klaus D. Witzel wrote:
What is the consequence? Well, in *practice* this emulates my solution - only type short names and it asks when there are choices.
And preserve that during fileOut? And cause conflicts (DNU's?) during fileIn?
As I understand it, the explicit fully qualified name is maintained in the code and filed out. [ The tools *may* display them as short names if they are non-ambiguous. ]
You hardly ever look at the imports anymore - which is yet another evidence that you typically *know* what you use/import.
Except when you hunt for bugs where two methods of the same class (and on the same side) use different namespaces?
They would be fully qualified in the code, so there would not be a conflict. [ However, if you like, the tools can *display* only the short names, where these are non-ambiguous. ]
- Don't *have* to be hierarchical.
- Don't *have* to use file/class/package level imports.
+1
- Don't *have* to be explicit.
Yes, this is in Goran's proposal. [ Again, they are explicit in the actual code, but the tools *may* display the non-explicit short names if they are non-ambiguous. Similarly, you only need to enter a short name if it is non-ambiguous, if there are two or more possibilities, the tool will ask which you mean. However, the explicit name is stored in the actual code. ]
David