On Sat, 2 Oct 2004, Josh Berkus wrote: > Gavin, > > > I agree that packages give us something like classes in that we can define > > related functions/procs into a single namespace. They provide other > > features like package level variables and public/private functionality. I > > think they major use is namespacing, however, and we can more or less have > > that for free with schemas. > > Don't knock non-namespacing aspects. Now that exception handling inside
I don't think I was. My point is that since we have an analogous concept, from a namespacing point of view, we don't need to do the work for 8.1. In fact, based on a previous submission to get packages in (about 2 years ago now) by someone working for Zembu (I think), I'd say that packages may be a lot of work. > So what am I saying? That we don't want to implement SPs in such a way that > would *prevent* the implementation of packages, but at the same time don't > want to make packages the focus of SPs, at least not yet. If there are any areas of what Neil and I have discussed so far which you think would hinder a package implementation, please let us know, since neither of us have much recent experience with them. Thanks, Gavin ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
