It solves the long function name problem and due to class naming conventions
it improves the global namespace problem quite a bit.
The long function name solution solves the the global namespace problem
completely but is imo not a good solution as it can easily become absurd.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Tomas Hlavaty <t...@logand.com> wrote:
> Hi Henrik,
> >>> (func> '+Kadabra arg1 arg2)
> >>> is shorter than:
> >>> (foo.bar.blabla.abra.kadabra.func arg1 arg2)
> >> no, it's similar to (Kadabra.func arg1 arg2).
> >> (func> '+Foo.bar.blabla.abra.kadabra arg1 arg2) is similar to
> >> (foo.bar.blabla.abra.kadabra.func arg1 arg2).
> > My example implied that +Kadabra is a sublass of a sublcass and so on up
> to +Foo.
> But it still doesn't solve the nature of the problem you are trying to
> address. It only shifts it a bit. Instead of having potential function
> name clashes, now you have potential class name clashes. +Foo still
> must be unique in the whole picolisp process. How is that better than
> func being unique in the whole picolisp process?
> UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=Unsubscribe