On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Matt Emson wrote:
> Vinzent Hoefler wrote: > > On Friday 18 January 2008 12:35, Bee wrote: > > Namespaces are too flat and simply not powerful enough to justify the > > implementation and maintenance effort. > > And units are better because...? > > I would take Namespaces over the crippled '80's unit notation any day. Units > come from an age when filenames were limited to 8.3 format. Yes, we now have > longer unit names, but Namespaces give context if nothing else. > > Scoping is what you make of it. Java has Packages, C++ has Namespaces, C# has > DotNet style Namespaces (not entirely the same thing.) I'd far rather have: > > uses Windows.Win32.Standard, Windows.Win32.Messages; > > than > > uses Windows, Messages; What is the difference ? The second one saves on typing, which is a plus in my book ? > File names should have nothing to do with Namespaces too. > > I'd also love: > > unit Blah; > Namespace MyAPI.Blah; And how will you know which namespace is in what unit (or file) ? You then need a second structure mapping namespaces on filenames, making it slower, bulkier and error prone. The cure is worse than the disease, IMHO. Michael. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
