On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Thierry Coq <t...@free.fr> wrote: > 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 > > I think namespace = package
rtl package generate rtl.dll or rtl.so (not yet in fpc) i can use uses rtl.sysutils, mypackage.classes; or uses sysutils in rtl, classes in mypackage; we can declare the package/namespcase as like in delphi package mypackage; uses myunit; end. Thanks for the your patient. -- Zaher Dirkey
_______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
