Squeak and Namespaces

David P Harris dpharris at telus.net
Thu Nov 30 09:40:55 UTC 2006

Klaus D. Witzel wrote:

>> What is the consequence? Well, in *practice* this emulates my solution -
>> only type short names and it asks when there are choices.
> And preserve that during fileOut? And cause conflicts (DNU's?) during  
> fileIn?

As I understand it, the explicit fully qualified name is maintained in 
the code and filed out.  [ The tools *may* display them as short names 
if they are non-ambiguous.  ]

>> You hardly ever
>> look at the imports anymore - which is yet another evidence that you
>> typically *know* what you use/import.
> Except when you hunt for bugs where two methods of the same class (and 
> on  the same side) use different namespaces?

They would be fully qualified in the code, so there would not be a 
conflict.  [ However, if you like, the tools can *display* only the 
short names, where these are non-ambiguous.  ]

>> - Don't *have* to be hierarchical.
>> - Don't *have* to use file/class/package level imports.
> +1
>  - Don't *have* to be explicit.

Yes, this is in Goran's proposal.  [ Again, they are explicit in the 
actual code, but the tools *may* display the non-explicit short names if 
they are non-ambiguous.  Similarly, you only need to enter a short name 
if it is  non-ambiguous, if there are two or more possibilities, the 
tool will ask which you mean.  However, the explicit name is stored in 
the actual code.  ]


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list