Dan:

>Here is some further discussion...
>-----------------------------------
>>Perhaps I'm repeating some earlier thoughts, but in spite of this I want
to
>>add a few remarks:
>>
>> 3.  Pkg Thing
>>
>>Best form I think.

>Yes.  I'm pretty sure of this now.

>>But how to realize it with PackageDictionaries (see below)?
>(also see below) each package will be an instance of a mechanically=
> generated subclass of the class of its enclosing package.  This provides
a=
> method dictionary for the export protocol and a superclass link for
inherit=
> ance.

>>To ensure that I have hit the point: And so no name clashes between
classes
>>in different packages?

>There is only one form of "clash" possible:  namely between levels in the=
> "open access" inheritance structure.


I cannot see name clashes between interface classes in the proposed
implementation. If the package interface class is a global in the
corresponding PackageDictionary then there can be only name clashes arising
from the names of the PackageDictionaries. So there is a very small field
left where naming conventions would make sense. In a conflict case there is
also the possibility to rename just one PackageDictionary - changes in code
referring to it are needed, too: I think this would be a version control and
browser issue.
But I think best is to avoid name clashes - in this small area - at all by a
good naming convention.


Stephan