Squeak and Namespaces
stephane.ducasse at free.fr
Wed Nov 29 19:26:14 UTC 2006
On 29 nov. 06, at 19:54, Andreas Raab wrote:
> Interesting. I'm just the other way around - I detest the idea of
> tools rewriting source code under my feet and have code in the
> morning look different from the same code in the afternoon, and
> have code that would perfectly compile in the morning not compile
> in the same way in the afternoon.
> And, I think imports are critical for scalability - because they a)
> declare dependencies explicitly and b) allow the *user* of a
> package/global to decide under which name to use them. The Python
> module system works that way and it works great.
Can you give an example? Do you mean that you can alias them?
I thought that imports at the package level (may be with alias) would
be a nice solution, since we could
have a flat view of the world inside a package or method and change
the binding at the border (import statement).
So I could plug a different (but compatible input) to my package. Now
after thinking a lot about that I'm not sure.
So I arrived to the conclusion that trying on a real system is the
only way and I do not have the time for that so I'm stuck
with my thoughts :)
More information about the Squeak-dev