> On May 20, 2016, at 10:43 AM, Robert Schwalbe via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Anyway, I'm +1 for namespaces everywhere, some names can be common. For >> example Node could be related to trees, physics engines and all sorts of >> constructs. "Node" may be a perfectly fine name for these. That said, these >> are sometimes tied to specific types in which case nesting them may make >> more sense, which I believe is already being addressed (currently we can't >> nest generic types)? It's certainly not as simple as it can appear! > > Absolutely +1 for namespaces. > > Even if you despise the concept of namespaces that seems like that can be > addressed by a project and/or company style guide that explicitly forbids > their use. > > For the people/projects that would embrace namespaces, namespaces would be a > godsend. > > Sure, you can probably pull all kind of stunts to simulate namespaces, but > besides creating additional work for the Swift team (and I do not say nor > take that lightly), they really need to be supported and implemented at the > language/syntax level for first class citizenry.
What benefit do namespaces provide that submodules would not? > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
