On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Marco van de Voort <[email protected]> wrote: > In our previous episode, Marcos Douglas said: >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Michael Van Canneyt >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I don't think namespaces are the holy grail. >> > >> > Assume we introduce namespaces, do things 'Properly' and introduce >> > Core.FileUtils >> > Core.StringUtils >> > (the names are just examples, to make a point) >> > >> > Now let's take example existing routines such as >> > ExtractFilePath >> > ExtractFileName >> > Where do we put them ? >> >> Using your examples names -- I say that because I disagree they are good >> names: >> >> Core.File.Utils >> - ExtractFilePath >> - ExtractFileName >> >> These functions 'belong' to the file context, not strings. > > Well, they are FPC only, and only work for OSes with a filesystems, so > > fpc.core.filesystem.file.utils is better I think.
FPC doesn't need to have "fpc" prefix because the compiler is the mainstream. "Core" is not good. Maybe: system.file.utils I don't like "utils". I'm just using the same names... > At the very least FPC specific functionality should not rest in a very > common worth as "core" as root prefix. That defeats the prime reason for > namespace, avoiding clashes. I agree. As I said before, I desagree with these names... but Michael said they are only examples. Best, Marcos Douglas _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - [email protected] http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
