Yes, finishing things up is the hardest part. It is also the part that makes people and great art remembered.
As I wrote yesterday on Twitter: Execution is everything. Ideas are nothing. I should add: and everything gets better with late binding :-p Phil 2012/6/27 Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> > > On Jun 27, 2012, at 9:24 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > Stephane, > > > > Wow, there is a limit to your utter awesomeness... Take care! > > > > On this namespace thing... Well, in fact, I found that nice with Java > but at the end of the day, what matters is the modular bit. And we have > that with packages and MC. We do no need the namespaces really. Prefixing > the classes works and scales. Look at any Obj-C app, there are prefixes > everywhere.... and it works well. > > > > No having this additional level makes Pharo much more approachable for > new people. And in order to get traction, this is important. > > yes this is why we have camille (a master student student that is turning > modules around in presence of class extensions and trying to see what would > be the best solution) > now we should finish what we started. > Finishing is more difficult. > > Stef > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > 2012/6/27 Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> > > James > > > > sorry but I'm at home stopped for 10 days because of a burnout (linked > partly to pharo and the business I want to spawn for the community). > > We talked endlessly about namespaces and so far we lived happily > without. Right now I will not talk about that. Read subsystem the paper of > wirfs-brock > > if you want to see what I would prefer to have. But we need to have a > scientific approach to evaluate. > > And yes I read the implementation two years ago. > > Finally did you see the list of topics that I mention? > > - do you want to help in any of them to make pharo better? > > because we have to get them first and I need all my energy for > them. > > > > Stef > > > > > > On Jun 27, 2012, at 12:25 AM, James Foster wrote: > > > > > On Jun 26, 2012, at 12:51 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > > > > > >> On Jun 26, 2012, at 9:30 PM, James Foster wrote: > > >> > > >>> On Jun 26, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > > >>> > > >>>>>>> What happened to the project from Germán Leiva > > >>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4I7fSVNX2A > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> we do not want class level namespace because this is the mess > > >>>>> > > >>>>> As the sponsor for Germán's project, I have some interest in this > topic. Stéphane has said a couple times that it is wrong but has never > taken time to explain his objections. > > >>>> > > >>>> We do not want to have class name resolution at the granularity of > a class. > > >>> > > >>> And are you saying this because you think Germán's implementation > does this? > > >>> > > >>>> Why because it means that in the same package reading the code > containing a class Foo could be a different one. > > >> > > >>>> Why because it means that in the same package, reading the code > containing a class Foo could be a different one. > > >> > ^^^^^ > > >> > > >> Class level namespace import means that in a given class, a method > accessing the variable Foo may end up pointing to another class Foo in a > class in the same package importing another namespace. > > > > > > I still don't understand the definition. What do you mean by "another > class Foo in a class." How can a class be in a class? Is Foo defined in two > packages? Is the method on the class Foo? Should the name be resolved to > the Foo in the package containing the method or to another Foo? Perhaps it > would help if you named the sample classes, packages, and methods. > > > > > > Are you saying that if the namespace is allowed to be defined (or > refined) at any level other than the package, then it is lumped into the > bucket called "class level namespace import"? > > > > > >>> I don't understand your example. I don't know what you mean by > "package reading the code." Are you describing a package that defines > classes Foo and Bar, and a method in a class Bar that references the Foo in > the same package? Are you providing this example because you think Germán's > implementation does not support this use case? > > >> > > >> No > > >> I just say that changing binding of variables at the class level is > not a good granularity. I do not want to have > > >> > > >> Object subclass: #NameOfSubclass > > >> instanceVariableNames: '' > > >> classVariableNames: '' > > >> poolDictionaries: '' > > >> category: 'Bob' > > >>>>> environment: > > > > > > Is it your impression that Germán's implementation requires this? If > so, on what do you base that understanding? Have you looked at the code? > > > > > >>>> I'm saying that since years. > > >>> > > >>> I agree you have been saying that Germán's implementation isn't what > you want. I just don't understand what you don't like about it. > > >> > > >> because this is a class level import. > > > > > > I still don't know what you mean by "class level import" or why you > think Germán's implementation fits your definition. > > > > > >>> Name resolution of all variables (including Globals, of which > Classes are a subset) should be part of a method compile. At the time a > method is compiled, an 'environment' should be provided to the compiler > that indicates how global name resolution should occur. > > >> > > >> Usually this is the class of the method. > > > > > > By "Usually" do you mean in pre-namespace Pharo? That is, the class is > one of the factors that the compiler considers in doing name lookup? Is the > "usual" approach good? Would it still be a factor considered by the > compiler in an environment namespace regime? > > > > > >>> This is a tools issue and it should be possible to specify the > default namespace environment for the method, for a method category, for a > class, for a class category, for a package, and for the system as a whole. > > >> > > >> no this is a question of language design. > > > > > > Do you consider packages to be part of the language? I have always > thought that one of the nice things about Smalltalk is how little of the > development environment is actually part of the language. Being able to > augment things through tools rather than changing the language seems to me > to be a feature, not a bug. > > > > > >>> In addition, within a particular method it should be possible to > explicitly reference a particular namespace environment, whether through > syntax (dot or double colons) > > >> > > >> No we do not want to have that. > > >> We want import to be specified at the border: i.e. during module > import. Inside a module the world is flat and as a developer I do not want > to know that this Point is from Core when that one is from MyCore. > > > > > > By "I do not want to know" do you mean "I do not want to be required > to specify" or do you mean "I do not want anyone else to be able to find > out"? If I want to know (say, to build tools), would that be okay? If I'm > willing to let you remain ignorant of a global's source would you be > willing to let me be enlightened? > > > > > >> If I want both, at the module import level I write > > >> > > >> Import: Point from: core as: CorePoint; > > >> import: Point from: dev as: DevPoint; > > > > > > What object implements #'import:from:as:'? > > > > > >>> or through message sends (e.g., a Dictionary's #'at:' method). I > prefer not to add new syntax and favor GemStone's implementation over that > of VisualWorks. > > >> > > >> I dislike them both. > > >> A module should provide a certain level of encapsulation, else naming > convention is good enough. > > >> Because else having namespace does not prevent you to have to declare > that WA is not a namespace somebody else should use. > > > > > > You say that you "do not want to" allow code "to explicitly reference > a particular namespace." Do you mean that arbitrary code should not be able > to see a global that is not explicitly imported at package load time and > that code should never be able to explicitly look at and manipulate > namespaces. Really? This seems to me to be very much contrary to the > existing spirit of reflection and introspection in Smalltalk and would make > tools much more limited. I suspect that this is not really what you mean. > > > > > > I believe that a package should be allowed to provide a default > environment, but I don't see the need to make it mandatory or exclusive. I > believe that a class should be allowed to override the default environment, > but I don't think it should be required. > > > > > > If a class is allowed (but not required) to override the default > (provided by the package/module, for example), does that make it a "class > level import" (and wrong, in your view)? > > > > > > What I understand from your statements so far is that Germán's > approach allows too much flexibility (namespace can be specified not just > at the package level but also at the class level and explicitly in code). > You do not want to allow anyone to experiment with different levels of > granularity. Is that it? > > > > > > Thanks for engaging in the discussion. > > > > > > James Foster > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Philippe Back > > Dramatic Performance Improvements > > Mob: +32(0) 478 650 140 | Fax: +32 (0) 70 408 027 Mail: > [email protected] | Web: http://philippeback.eu | Blog: > http://philippeback.be > > > > High Octane SPRL > > rue cour Boisacq 101 > > 1301 Bierges > > Belgium > > > -- Philippe Back Dramatic Performance Improvements Mob: +32(0) 478 650 140 | Fax: +32 (0) 70 408 027 Mail: [email protected]| Web: http://philippeback.eu | Blog: http://philippeback.be High Octane SPRL rue cour Boisacq 101 1301 Bierges Belgium
