The problem comes if we determine there is a much better way to do
this. We
can't just pull the namespaces out because then you will have 30
classes
named "Dictionary" and so on. You will have to either touch them all
or run
some script that appends the namespace on the front of the class and
then
pull namespaces out. I don't see either of these as doable, so I
would
expect that once namespaces are in as default for a couple of years
that is
what we are going to have from now on.
Eh, no not really. Today without my solution MCDictionary has the name #MCDictionary.
You just said "no", and then repeated J J's post in your own words. ;)
In some sense yes. :) But I tried getting the subtle differences across - like that the name of MCDictionary is not its short name with my solution being in - it is the fully qualified name.
So there is AFAICT no difference from the current state - when we have MCDictionary.
In short: you can add hierarchical names with no immediate cost, but once people use it, it would be a much larger cost to go back.
While, I like hierarchical naming in general, there is no denying that there are plenty of issues to consider.
-Lex
I agree. And yes, there is a cost. But people seem to think that we have these choices:
1. No change at all leaving us without Namespaces as it has always been. We don't need no darn Namespaces!
2. Adding my solution now that gives us Namespaces that don't seem so impressive to all the language scientists (hey, no imports? It must suck).
3. Wait for some "stronger cool advanced" solution coming soon solving all problems known to man kind regarding naming, dependencies, modules etc.
When in fact we IMHO probably have these choices:
1. Live on with "manual" namespaces using prefixes that doesn't enable any proper tool support. We have them ALREADY - don't deny it.
2. Fix prefixes so that they can at least be used as proper Namespaces and enable tool support and what not. It is just an improvement on what we ALREADY have.
3. Wait forever for "stronger cool advanced" solutions that will be presented, shot down and never enter the official Squeak. And during this perpetual wait we will still be using crappy prefixes, while arguing to death on squeak-dev about different models more incomprehensive than the next.
Wanna bet? :)
regards, Göran
PS. To all recent Squeakers - Namespaces is a well known squeak-dev killer subject. It pops up EVERY year, creates tons of posts and never any real changes. I wrote my solution more than 2.5 years ago!!! And that sure wasn't the first time this was discussed - remember Squeak 3.3alpha?! Or Dan's environment experiment which predates even that? Don't think this is anything new, it is just a recurring cycle. Lord knows how the hell we got Traits into 3.9 - it is a bloody miracle. :)