On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Jorge Aldo G. de F. Junior <jagf...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2012/8/21 Marcos Douglas <m...@delfire.net>: >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Marco van de Voort <mar...@stack.nl> wrote: >>> In our previous episode, Marcos Douglas said: >>> >>>> I proposed this sintaxe: >>>> uses my_long_unit_name as my; >>>> begin >>>> my.proc(); >>>> end >>> >>> This doesn't protect any better, since >>> the new unit might also define "my". >> >> True, but using this sintaxe I can use an alias to the third-party >> units so, I can use my own names to reference identifiers that I can >> not change. >> The collision still can exists? Yes, but in that case the programmer >> would be wrong, not third-party unit names or because the compiler not >> helped. >> >> The third-party could use a better and bigger name like "XyzNetSocket" >> but I could use just "net" (uses XyzNetSocket as net), for example. >> >> IMHO this is more sophisticated than pure namespace. > > Instead of implementing the half-assed C++ namespace model, just add > to the compiler a warning when it detects that there is a collision in > the current scope (two functions with the same parameters from > different units that can be called from the scope being inspected). I > believe function overload alread provides the necessary hooks, but i > cant do it because i have zero experience with FPC sources...
Well, a good idea but this is another thing... This is do not resolves the problem if I have a third-party unit with the same name that other. Marcos Douglas _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal