On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Martin <f...@mfriebe.de> wrote: > [snip] >> IMO, if there is no further concept of child units (maybe similar to Ada) >> there is no point in adding namespaces to FPC, it's not worth the trouble. >> After all, it's still a name and if somebody else already uses it, you still >> need another to disambiguate. >> > > Yes, Namespaces (those on top of units) will inherit the same conflict > problem that units have. That is as long as the inherit the same source... > > That means, if the namespace for a unit is given to that unit by the writer > of that unit, then 2 writers of 2 units will eventually give the same > namespace to equally named units.... > > *if*, but what is if not. What is if the namespace is not set by the writer > of the unit, but instead of that by the user of the unit. > > The user will always know if 2 units do conflict => so he can then set a > namespaces => and because the user (as in the writer of the final program) > knows already all the names, and decides all the namespaces himself => there > will be no conflict.
As I said: [[ > But if you can CHOOSE the name of alias for the units of others > programmers, in MY project, then I can see a possible solution, don't > you? ]] > that can be done by giving the namespace to an include path -Fu / -FU (if > necessary recursive) > => only draw back, you have to do it equally for every PC /installation that > you use.... > (unless the UUID thing....) > > Then again, it is only worth the bother, if someone actually deems it worth > his/her time to implement it.... MD _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
