Like Michael,
I see units as namespaces already existing: we use the unit names to
prefix ambiguous function or variable names for example.
In addition, units are similar (but simpler) to Ada packages, which are
much more robust than namespaces. If we want to go the full way, let's
implement Ada packages instead of namespaces, by extending the unit
concept. (see here for an example : http://www.adaic.org/whyada/intro4.html)
Let's not add yet another concept to manage the naming. Units and types
are enough. One issue is for example, what would happen to the interface
and implementation of units, if an additional namespace is introduced?
How would the conflicts be managed? Would there be private units or
public units?
I vote for robust Ada packages, if we need them. Such packages can form
a hierarchy, can be visible or not from other packages. In addition, we
would have the ability to separately compile the interface and the
implementation sections of the unit, which is not possible currently
with FPC.
Thierry
On 26/07/2010 15:16, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Hi,
I created a wiki page for this to consolidate ideas.
http://wiki.freepascal.org/Namespaces
Regards,
- Graeme -
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
