On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 6:22 AM, Michael Van Canneyt <[email protected]
> wrote:
[...]
> 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 ?
>
> Both units are a candidate. The former because it is about filenames.
> The latter because they are purely string operations.
> Your namespace doesn't solve this problem.
>
ExtractFilePath/ExtractFileName sounds more related to file operations, so:
Core.File:
...
TFile = class sealed(TObject)
public
class function ExtractPath ... ; static;
class function ExtractName ... ; static;
...
writeln(TFile.ExtractPath(...));
writeln(TFile.ExtractName(...));
or:
Core.File:
...
function ExtractPath ...;
function ExtractName ...;
writeln(File.ExtractPath(...));
writeln(File.ExtractName(...));
(btw the example above needs the -NS feature)
IMHO, if the <context> already is called "file", you don't need to add the
context name again in the function name, so instead of:
writeln(Extract<File>Path(...));
writeln(Extract<File>Path(...));
just use:
writeln(<File>.ExtractPath(...));
writeln(<File>.ExtractName(...));
So, you can do <context>.code-completation to get all the features to this
context.
Once more, the above is purely theoretical discussion; I am not opposing
> anything, just pointing out that the use of namespaces is
> and remains a matter of preference (or even fashion/hype).
Both approaches compiles, but I agree the it is a preferencial thing.
--
Silvio Clécio
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - [email protected]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
