Squeak and Namespaces

Michael van der Gulik mikevdg at gmail.com
Thu Nov 30 21:53:36 UTC 2006


On 11/30/06, Göran Krampe <goran at krampe.se> wrote:

But others
> might benefit from at least *contemplating* that namespaces:
>
> - Don't *have* to be hierarchical.


Well, this is just the next step in the evolution of namespaces. How long
would it take before you go from:

Morphic::StringMorph

to

Morphic::Base::StringMorph

or

Squeak::Morphic::StringMorph
Croquet::Morphic::StringMorph
Tweak::MorphicCompatibility::StringMorph

or even

Squeak::Base::Graphics::Morphic::BasicMorphs::Text::StringMorph
(as opposed to any of the other 114 StringMorphs in a distributed Squeak
environment...)

Arguably, we're not at that stage yet, and one-level Namespaces fix all our
current problems. I've already been bitten by lack of Namespaces - I
couldn't implement my own SocketStream because the name was already used.

- Don't *have* to use file/class/package level imports.
>


Like I mentioned earlier, I need this feature for securities' sake, but I'm
probably going to implement a completely different Namespace system for my
own use.

I'm quite impartial to how Namespaces are implemented in Squeak and I think
your proposal is fine, provided that I can remove it later if it gets in my
way. Currently this seems trivial, and if people don't start making
unnecessary prolific use of the new Namespace syntax then I could still
re-use most of the existing code.

So.. +1 to your proposal from me.

Michael.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20061201/8771b9f3/attachment.htm


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list