Quick comparison of two Namespaces proposals
Jason Johnson
jason.johnson.081 at gmail.com
Tue Sep 18 16:48:44 UTC 2007
I've looked at the proposal, and you will see it. Today you wouldn't
because there are no namespaces and thus no conflicts.
I agree we need namespaces, I just think we can do better, both in
looks and in functionality. It's nothing against Goeran, just as I
told him, I think his Delta's thing is right on the money. I just
think this is really going to "give us only enough rope...."
On 9/18/07, Ramon Leon <ramon.leon at allresnet.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On
> > Behalf Of Jason Johnson
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 9:10 AM
> > To: Ron at usmedrec.com; The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> > Subject: Re: Quick comparison of two Namespaces proposals
> >
> > Oh no, are people really so strongly for ::? It make source
> > code look absolutely awful. The period looks a thousand
> > times better, but I don't think there is a non-ambiguous way to do it.
> >
>
> Maybe you should look at Gorans proposal first. In general, :: would
> separate the prefix from the class name in such a way that the tools can
> hide Kernel:: except when there's ambiguity, or in file outs. Formalizing
> prefixes that we all currently do by convention anyway while keeping the
> simplicity of a single global namespace and avoiding the need for imports.
> It's actually a nice proposal and :: doesn't look bad at all, since you'll
> hardly ever see it.
>
> Ramon Leon
>
>
>
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|