On 10 févr. 05, at 9:20, goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:

> Hi all!
>
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?st=E9phane_ducasse?= <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
>>> Yes, I like that. And here is some reasoning too:
>>>
>>> 1. I really don't like Packages that have "loose classes" in other
>>> class
>>> categories. Or to put it in another way - why would two different
>>> packages have classes in the same class category? I mean, sure - I 
>>> can
>>> construct a case - but isn't it more confusing than helping? I vote 
>>> for
>>> a Package to simply be what PI is today - that way it still is 
>>> strictly
>>> hierarchical and simple.
>>
>> But we should be able to add comment and other information to 
>> packages.
>
> But... that is the job of SM! You simply register a corresponding SM
> package, fill in the PI field - and bam - you now have description,
> owner, comaintainers, releases yaddayadda. I thought this was obvious.

NO!
Why this information should be on a server.
Class comments and methods comments are not on a server.




>
>>> 2. Renaming PIs? Perhaps I didn't understand, but what is hard about
>>> that? Just rename the class cats and the PI - done. Can't see the 
>>> real
>>> hard part there, but I have just had my morning coffee and perhaps it
>>> hasn't kicked in yet. :)	
>>
>> Apparently you did not try to rename a package having  extensions :)
>
> Ah, forgot that. Well, not *too* hard to fix though. :)
>
>>> So... yes, yes, yes. Let's use the current PI. And Alex doesn't have 
>>> to
>>> worry - if he brings forward a cool new replacement - fine. We can
>>> probably easily adopt it.
>>
>> Yes
>> Go
>
> Goodie.
>
>>> Yeah. Now - just to be short - the nice thing with my Namespace
>>> implementation was that it didn't change much at all for the 
>>> programmer
>>> while still offering quite a few benefits usuallu found in "classic"
>>> namespaces. And hey - besides a few snafus in the current
>>> implementation
>>> - it WORKS. TODAY. :)
>>
>> But what are you talking about? Please do not mess up the discussion.
>
> Couldn't help myself. :) Btw, you still haven't explained to me why you
> didn't like it? I would be interested in hearing that - but yes, in
> another thread or private email.

We all here do not like it so may be one of us will take time to explain
but you should come to ESUG and you will get what we think.
I already explain that we do not want to have reference to other 
namespace elements inside
method body. But I will not continue here.

>
> regards, Göran
>