Thanks
see http://www.squeaksource.com/Namespace.html we did that some years
ago
But we have to change its design because we separated trait/class/
global binding and it was not good.
I think that we need namespaces but not a la VW. So names seems good
(but I can be wrong)
About Names...
- import: '*' is not a so good design decision (we see it daily with
Java) but it is probably necessary.
- One namespace per category wow! Probably for a start. :) but
clearly if we want one per package (which I hope
we want).
- The export clause is nice to have (even if I'm not sure about
export: from: since export from itself self can be
more important than from another namespace).
All in all even if I can often argue with andreas I like his design
(may be I'm wrong).
I like the fact that there is no nesting. I prefer that design if I
understand it correctly
over macro like expansion as proned by goran (even if his solution
was backward compatible).
It is close to what we did with
http://www.squeaksource.com/Namespace.html
( we did not have an export
close if I remember correctly but were thinking about adding one).
Now I would like to see where we defined them. Ideally I would put
them on Package.
Stef
On Mar 27, 2009, at 8:32 AM, Torsten Bergmann wrote:
> FYI: see http://www.squeaksource.com/Names.html
>
> MIT License
> --
> Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit
> allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger01
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
