Stewart Smith wrote: > 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?
YES! There should be NO using in headers. > still trying to work out what I feel about plugins though.... Me too, honestly. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
