My namespace proposal described in Yet Another Try
Chris Muller
asqueaker at gmail.com
Fri Oct 5 01:46:03 UTC 2007
Well, I really don't see much harm. Let's say I decide I want no part
of Goran's proposal but many in the community moved forward with it.
Now I want to use code from one of the proponents.
The only difference is their classes will be spelled with a :: in
there somewhere. I can't dictate how classes are spelled now any
less, so what's the harm?
On 10/4/07, Jason Johnson <jason.johnson.081 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/21/07, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well I have to admit, there seems to be no harm in doing Göran's
> > proposal. It's an incremental step forward that should buy us a LOT
> > of time, probably as much as we'll ever need. Also, like he said,
> > does not preclude migrating to any other namespace solutions in the
> > future.
>
> But it can be harm. Not to pick on traits, but to take it as an
> example. Have they helped? Andreas at least doesn't think so, and we
> still haven't seen conclusive evidence that they are going to help as
> implemented. If they turn out to be a bad idea how are they going to
> get ripped out again?
>
> And that's something that isn't even getting used that much. The
> namespaces will probably be used very quickly. I'm surprised there
> are no packages that depend on them already.
>
>
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|