In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian McNett) wrote:
> On Monday, January 14, 2002, at 09:42 AM, Chris Nandor wrote: > > > I wonder if maybe we should have Carbon:: or Cocoa:: namespaces? Even > > Mac::Carbon:: or Mac::Cocoa:: or Mac::Aqua:: etc. This would be > > Mac::Carbon::Something in that case ... > > I haven't weighed in on this issue (or much of anything of late) > but this would seem to be the most reasonable solution. This > would give us Mac:: as the "classic" MacOS namespace, > Mac::Carbon:: as the transitional API (with CarbonLib on MacOS 9 > and earlier systems), and Mac::Cocoa as the namespace for MacOS > X (and later) modules. Although I would still push for similar > interfaces across similar modules (and there will be some > duplicate functionality regardless of what else happens). Note that the "Classic" Mac toolbox *is* almost entirely Carbon, however. There's been some thought that the port of the Mac:: toolbox to Carbon could be in Mac::Carbon::, with the same interface, though I am not sure it's necessary. At this point, I figure the Mac:: toolbox modules should stay where they are, in lieu of companions in Mac::Carbon::, although additional Carbon modules could go there. Or something. I dunno, I am still trying to figure it out myself. -- Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pudge.net/ Open Source Development Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
