Namespaces (was: Re: [ANN]A plan for 3.8/4.0... (insert drumrollhere))

goran.krampe at bluefish.se goran.krampe at bluefish.se
Fri Apr 2 12:15:24 UTC 2004


"Andreas Raab" <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> > If all my classes in the image (in all packages) have different names -
> > then I can refer to them just like today. When I load a package with
> > "yet another Parser class" then it would be nice to get a conflict and
> > then resolve it through an explicit reference or some explicit
> > "remapping" or whatever - but not until there actually is a conflict.
> 
> You are confusing "namespace" and "package". There is no relation between
> the two, absolutely none. A namespace is a place to look up names - which is
> completely unrelated to a "package" which is a unit of delivery. A package
> *may* reside in its own namespace but there is no requirement for that.

Sure, fine, but my "point" still stands - it would be nice if the
environment works in an "optimistic" fashion. Meaning that I can access
for example classes simply by their name *if there are no conflicts
doing that*. You know what I mean.

> > It is also good because doing the equivalent of "import
> > se.bluefish.squeakmap.yaddayadda.*" would drive me totally crazy. I
> > don't want to go there. Please tell me you don't want that either. :)
> 
> If you choose to give a namespace that name, I couldn't care less :-)

Well, sure - my point was that I don't want us to move towards a
namespace world where you always need to explicitly "import" stuff in
order to "see" them. It hurts. IMHO.

> Cheers,
>   - Andreas

regards, Göran



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list