> On 26 July 2010 19:26, Thierry Coq <t...@free.fr> wrote: > > > > I see units as namespaces already existing: we use the unit names to > > prefix > > ambiguous function or variable names for example. > > Unit Names give very limited namespace support - which only applies to > types or procedures/functions or global variables (anything in the > interface section of a unit).
And that sure is enough - unless you want to extend to Ada's package concept (which in fact is more than just "namespace") and even there you are not immune to name conflicts. I suppose you know that as you were the one who suggested it. ;) But then, IME (most) name conflicts are a sure sign of inproper names. Take the example of "constants.pas": What sort of constants shall I expect there? Screen sizes, color codes, electron mass or the gravitational constant? Namespaces are a clutch added to C++ because being stuck with C-compilers they simply had no proper solution. Remember, in C _every_ visible identifier is in the same scope. There are no "units". Vinzent. -- Neu: GMX De-Mail - Einfach wie E-Mail, sicher wie ein Brief! Jetzt De-Mail-Adresse reservieren: http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/demail _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
