On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:57 AM, Marco van de Voort <mar...@stack.nl> wrote: > In our previous episode, Marcos Douglas said: >> Yes, we know too... but how prevent this using third-party libs? >> For example, what do you think if I have a project that have a file >> called lnet.pas? Can I use this identifier? > > As much as any identifier. If you uses lnet; in the same unit where you > import an unit with lnet symbol, you have to qualify it fully.
I said identifier, but I mean FILE and, in that case, I can't use it. >> can't because the lnet project already uses, right? But I didn't know >> before...ohh my... and now, I can't use this project because I will >> got a compiler error because "cant have two units with the same name". >> Do you think this is right? >> Because of this conflict that I proposed the syntax: >> uses >> foounit as f1 in '/path_1/foounit.pas', >> foounit as f2 in '/path_2/foounit.pas'; > > That only fixed it for that compilation unit, > if another unit just "uses foounit" that leads to an inconsistent state. First, this is an idea, so should be improved. Second, this is a problem of programmer; if he forget, sorry for him. Third, maybe this sintaxe should be used just on project (not unit) and in units only use the alias (f1 and f2 in that case). >> > Requiring all functions to be allways fully qualified will make the >> > most commom case worse than current implementation just to be better >> > for the uncommon case. This is a step back, not forward... > >> Timothy Madden want this, not me. ;-) > > I have experience with it, and it is a nice feature if it is not mandatory. > So you don't _have_ to qualify. > > If you know that a certain unit contains a lot of fairly common symbol names > you import it qualified. (like many large API units, typically you only uses > an handfull symbols from e.g. Windows, and it is not mandatory for the > other situations). > > Modula2 went a step to far to only allow unqualified use if you name the > symbols. That is too laboursome. Simply unqualified (what we have now) and > qualified would go a long way. > > ... and all its effects and sideeffects are known. I agree. Marcos Douglas _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
