Hi guys

Where are you going? I do not understand why you get all crazy about 
that? Please do not create another monster.

An import per class is pure nonsense. You do not want to have this 
granularity. Imagine a symbol would means something different between 
your class. Good luck. Look at VW this is wrong!!! YES wrong.

On 8 avr. 04, at 10:57, goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:

> If you are just talking about a different "way" to store the 
> information
> - I agree, might be easier, need to think a bit more about that. But it
> sounds like you are instead describing an "import" model per class 
> (just
> like in Java), and that is different than what I describe.

Hopefully.

I did not read your proposal goran because I have too much work but 
here is the summary I have from the discussion I got with andreas:

which is:

We need :: if we do not want to modify the environment
Else we can an import at the namespace level.

I said:
"Now the main difference between my view and the one of andreas
(I understand well what he wants) is that we do not need :: ***if*** we 
have a different
environment. If we have an explicit import we do not need ::. This way
we avoid that people can create worse spaghetti but we get namespace
that is really only a collection of names with no magic.
The price is to have another set of tools. So I understand that andreas
did his choice. Alex reimplemented yet another browser. But my
impression is that this is worth. Because having explicit scope
operator can introduce a lot of problems. What is nice with import is
that you have a flat space and you only introduce what you want in one
place."

Then there is the question of the renaming.


Stef