On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 04:52:33PM -0700, Eric Day wrote: > > I quite like using drizzled:: explicitly... but then again, I am weird. > > So, I'm doing some namespace cleanup around the Protocol and Scheduler > modules, and have been doing: > > using namespace drizzled; > > plugin::Protocol ...; > > Which I think we just agreed is preferred over: > > drizzled::plugin::Protocol ...; > > I'm seeing drizzled::message::Table (probably from Stewart ;) already > in the source, but would like to be consistent. We should pick one or > the other and normalize, and I'd prefer the shorter name approach with > 'using' (sorry Stewart). Thoughts?
long form in headers, short in source? still trying to work out what I feel about plugins though.... -- Stewart Smith _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
