Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
On Friday 18 January 2008 12:35, Bee wrote:
Namespaces are too flat and simply not powerful enough to justify the
implementation and maintenance effort.
And units are better because...?
I would take Namespaces over the crippled '80's unit notation any day.
Units come from an age when filenames were limited to 8.3 format. Yes,
we now have longer unit names, but Namespaces give context if nothing else.
Scoping is what you make of it. Java has Packages, C++ has Namespaces,
C# has DotNet style Namespaces (not entirely the same thing.) I'd far
rather have:
uses Windows.Win32.Standard, Windows.Win32.Messages;
than
uses Windows, Messages;
File names should have nothing to do with Namespaces too.
I'd also love:
unit Blah;
Namespace MyAPI.Blah;
interface
type
TTest = partial class
//non GUI code
end;
implementation
end.
and then be allowed
unit Blah.GUI;
Namespace MyAPI.Blah;
interface
type
TTest = partial class
public
//GUI code
end;
implementation
end.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
