On Friday 18 January 2008 12:07, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to see that if unitname can > containe one (or more) dots, this mechanism becomes suddenly a lot > harder because your unitname may, by accident, match > unitname.identifier1 of a symbol in another unit. > > And doing all this in a way that doesn't change current behaviour... > Not something you can do in a day, if you ask me.
The more important: What would the user gain from it? Other than being able to write "unit1" and "unit1.extension" instead of a "unit1" and "unit1_extension"? As namespaces were thrown into the discussion: The same scoping rules would still apply, so it's merely a "writing" enhancement, nothing the compiler could check or would enforce. So, as far as I am concerned, putting effort into the development of such flat namespaces - which, while enforced by the developer only, are already there, but using underscores instead of dots - gain zero points, so I would be against it. This is just too much effort for pure syntactic sugar. Vinzent. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
