On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Joël Thieffry <j...@zerezo.com> wrote:
> Le 05/08/2010 21:56, Marcos Douglas a écrit :
>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Marcos Douglas <m...@delfire.net> wrote:
>>> 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....
>> I was thinking... if we could use a nickname, for an unit, just to
>> reference it on the code?
>> The unit (same) name problem still happen, I know... then I have to
>> rename my units with long names (this is worse) but I could codify
>> with bit names in my code.
>>
>> eg:
>> the unit mycompany_strutils.pas will be referenced on the code:
>>
>> uses
>> mycompany_strutils as stru;
>>
>> begin
>> stru.Foo('str foo');
>> end;
>>
>> Got it?
>> Is this more easy to implement?
> This looks like the import as statement in Python :
> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0221/
Exactly :)
Marcos Douglas
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
