Hi!

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?st=E9phane_ducasse?= <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
> Thank goran for your summary

Well, it clears my head trying to write it down properly anyway.

> I have a question:
>  From one method in Foo::Bar, I can refer to ZZ::X. I guess that this is 
> possible
> and this is what I do not like. I'm curious to see the future.

Why don't you like that? I mean - referencing classes in other
namespaces seems like something you would want to do, hard to get
anything done otherwise. :)

> You use flat not in the same way I do (for me flat means that from 
> within the methods you cannot see outside a namespace because there is 
> no namespace conceptually).

What I mean with "flat" is that you can't organize the namespaces in
relation to each other. They don't form a hierarchy or anything like
that.

> I do not really understand why having an import statement that would be 
> feed in by the LookupContext would not be a better solution. This way 
> you cannot have spaghetti reference at the method level.

I am not sure what you mean. And note - references in my proposal are
just like they are today - but they are explicit in the source. So there
is not an ounce more or less spaghetti that there is today. If you have
a method referencing the Delay class - then you will still have that
with my proposal. And I would guess with anyones proposal - unless the
method is rewritten. :)

> I tried to contact you on IRC but now this is too late for me. I have 
> to leave.
> Stef

Sorry, I missed you with a few minutes. I am there though.

regards, Göran