My namespace proposal described in Yet Another Try
siguctua at gmail.com
Wed Sep 19 20:40:03 UTC 2007
Just 5 cents.
I don't know, really a reasons why we should keep with obsolete
doctrine in having global dictionary? Its a barrier in collaborative
environment which we should remove (and the sooner - the better),
because if we don't do anything and keep things intact, while squeak
code base will grow, soon there will be 5% instead of 1% in name
conflicts and will grow more and more.
In closed, self sufficient community there no need to have any support
But i hope everyone here wants to see a squeak is a number one
smalltalk in the world, or we don't?
Giving a simple way to use global names in smalltalk was done for
convenience of developer. But now, we get to point that each conscious
developer, each time he needs to create new class should think twice
what name to give to it, because convenience to him here and now, can
turn into inconvenience for others later.
And, obviously, in such situation its more convenient for ALL to use
A names locally bound to some Namespace don't change code drastically,
and code can stay backward compatible (unless you play with well known
names, like #Array or #Collection).
Most often uses of global names is references to well known kernel
classes like #OrderedCollection, #Array, e.t.c. If you take any random
class from any other package, you'll find that number of references to
it barely beyond 3.
So, i think that converting any userland(i.e. non-core) code to use
with namespaces is a task for couple of minutes, since before
conversion we had each unique name = unique class.
There are some problems when moving to namespaces like usage of
'Smalltalk at:/at:put:' code. But using reflective hammer we can
easily get around it:
- get caller context, get its method, get method's class, get class
namespace - do name lookup.
So, if we really want it, we can do it in backward compatible way.
On 19/09/2007, Göran Krampe <goran at krampe.se> wrote:
> Hi Jason!
> > Hi,
> > To keep it short, I've been heading down the same path on my own. So I
> > should check out your package and see where you are, and maybe same myself
> > some time. :) Wonder if it'll break in 3.10. Thanks for your write-up.
> > Jason
> I started this code in 2004 actually. The issue of namespaces pop up
> regularly here in Squeak-dev and I try to explain it and push it and tweak
> it a bit every time the subject comes up.
> I would gladly see some help with punding on it and fixing some
> outstanding issues etc. If you are interested (or anyone else for that
> matter) - email me and/or pop up on IRC (irc.freenode.net, #squeak - I am
> gokr or gok1).
> I am going to OOPSLA late october and it would be neat to give it a push
> until then. My other "labor of love" right now is DeltaStreams, which is a
> tad related.
> regards, Göran
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
More information about the Squeak-dev