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
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.
> - 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