goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote on 06.04.2004 10:53:47:

>This will also encourage us to to still have globally unique names in
>our packages which is a GOOD thing because no matter how cool 
>namespaces we have - it all ends up in our heads - and our heads is 
>just one big namespace. If many namespaces have "Delay" entries, it 
>will still mess with our heads.

and referring to SqueakMap::Delay
 
>	2. Rename it to MapUpdateDelay and be fine, that might very well be a
>more precise name.

I think this is a very important point. SqueakMap::Delay tells us 
NOTHING about the nature of the delay, but MapUpdateDelay does. To 
understand a program ( while reading or writing it ), we don't want to 
have the information where something comes from, we want to know what 
it does. 

If we offer to create unique names by "prefixing" with a namespace, we 
may put the fences at the wrong places. People will often choose to 
take the easy road not willing to think about a really describing name 
which would help programming and understanding programs as much as 
possible. 

If you often have to qualify the name fully ( depending on the 
implementation ) the barrier to create a really describing name will 
be raised further. ( SqueakMap::MapUpdateDelay ;-) 

Namespaces may lower the signal to noise ratio of our source code.

Given how fast people here are starting to talk about nested 
namespaces or "partitioning" the whole image into many namespaces, I 
guess implementing namespaces will not automagically "clean up" names 
in the future, it will probably do the opposite. 

Regards
Martin