A lightweight namespace "proposal"
bert at impara.de
Thu Apr 22 09:39:49 UTC 2004
Am 22.04.2004 um 01:52 schrieb Peter van Rooijen:
> The classes that are now already in the base image, can (and should,
> in my opinion) all go in the same namespace. No Collection::Set,
> Magnitude::Float or Network::Socket (these are examples of
> namespace/package confusion).
> I would advocate keeping it all very simple by making the root
> namespace have *no name*. This makes the root namespace unique
> syntactically and avoids all discussion about naming it Smalltalk,
> Squeak, Root, or whatever.
> So you write Set to refer to whatever Set is seen/visible from where
> (i.e., in which namespace) the code is, and if you absolutely want the
> one in the root namespace, you write ::Set. This suggests that if you
> write Set and you are in the namespace SqueakMap, you will get
> SqueakMap::Set if it exists, so it suggests the possibility of
> shadowing, which I in fact advocate.
> Of course if you write Set and your code is in the root namespace, it
> can only refer to ::Set. Very nice for existing code in the
> distribution images, it is not affected at all :-).
- Bert -
More information about the Squeak-dev