Namespaces (was: Re: [ANN]A plan for
ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Sat Apr 3 09:38:32 UTC 2004
> Stef, you really need to understand that this is all about the goals
> have. "You do not need a reference operator" is not an argument here
> because fundamentally you don't need a namespace or imports either -
> since a
> class has an identity (which you could for example express via a UUID)
> it is
> completely irrelevant for the system what its name is. Names are
> assigned by
> humans. And if we want to provide a way to keep that user's namespace
> then we may very well need the ability to use an explicit scope.
> In this context, "need" is defined by what we want to show to the user
> - if
> we deliberately want to hide some names while keeping them accessible
> somehow then we do in fact need a way of referring to a name from some
> which is not in the "first order namespace".
> And similarly, if you are happy with putting everything someone uses
> into a
> single flat namespace, then yes, you don't need a reference operator.
> this is a question of what you're trying to achieve, and while I can
> that for the goals of ClassBoxes you may not need a scope operator
> not true for my goals. I "need" it ;-)
I totally agree. (I really emails I'm so bad at communicating via text)
I was saying that you do not need You = andreas. Read my other emails.
I think that this
is really a question of goal and I totally understand yours. Now our
to avoid scope manipulation, the idea was you have multiple Smalltalk
(difficult to express again)....What I wanted to say is that there is
no one single absolute way to have
namespace and that the only canonical form is using ::. (this was the
meaning of you do not need
::). I guess that you understand what I tried to say so badly.
(sometimes my mind goes too fast
at least faster than my typing ;)). I have the impression that I will
be always a frustrated guy regarding communication and I do not see
something that scale more than emails right now.
May be chat...
> BTW, you *do* need the ability to rename and this may easily get even
> ugly than having an explicit scope operator. Some names are heavily
> and it's not clear whether explicitly renaming objects based on what
> single user thinks the convention is would be better than providing a
> system-wide consistent way of referring to it.
Yes I think that this is were the real problems arise
> My preference is with the latter - if I try to import Foo from A and B
> would find it preferrable if I'd have to be explicit and if in code
> that I
> read I see it stated that this is "A::Foo" vs. "B::Foo" instead of
> Foo into "Bar" and "Mumble".
This is also my impression. I'm really not sharp on renaming because
we discussed a lot and we decided to remove it because we could get a
So I would have to really see the need and what are all the problems.
> - Andreas
More information about the Squeak-dev