On 10/4/07, Göran Krampe <goran at krampe.se> wrote:
>
> Note though that the interesting bit is *still* compile time bound in both
> these examples - the ref to the namespace itself; Seaside - see below.

It doesn't have to be.  The syntax I expressed could be actually
resolved compile time or late bound, depending on how it was
implemented.

> Well, I would actually consider going in the OPPOSITE direction inspired
> by Dan etc. Why not just go *fully late bound*? It would solve lots of
> problems - like dynamic remapping of spaces without any recompilation
> needed.

Because of the speed concerns, and it may not (probably isn't) always
be needed.  My idea here was just implement it purely late bound with
no option for compile time binding, and just use macros (which I want
anyway) to implement early binding.

> But offering dynamic lookup and still using compile time binding TOO -
> that defeats the power of it. If we ONLY use late binding then we have new
> interesting opportunities.

You lost me here.  How does having options lose power?

> This sounds even simpler and more backwards compatible than my first
> proposal. ;)

Cool.  It sounds interesting to me as well.  I'm interested to see
what Mike (did he say we can call him that? :) has to say, as his
proposal may already do much of this.

But the aspect I really like from your original proposal and again
here is not doing the imports.  I don't know if it will scale, but I
haven't seen it tried before and it might turn out very successful.