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.
>
> ok.
>
> 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?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tomas
> --
> UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
>

Reply via email to