Not really namespace related, but: Most of the commercial/free/open source Delphi/FPC libraries are backward compatible to D7-D6 (including all Delphi-win32 versions) That comes with a cost (a bless) of not using new language syntax (as much as possible). And typically include a long-long ".inc" that instructs the compiler to be as much convservative as it can (fighting Delphi cross-version incompatibilities)
So from language environment perspective, the hard usage of "namespaces" is most likely will be limited to a certain set of projects. thanks, Dmitry On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Fabrício Srdic <fabricio.sr...@gmail.com>wrote: > I know I'm a newbie in fpc, but I don't see backward compatibility a > reason enough to leave to implement some improvements, like organize the > base units of the fpc into proper namespaces. > > As Michael and Sven said, if Delphi itself is not fully compatible among > versions, why should fpc be? > > According to the on-line documentation, fpc has five units that are > specific to the Unix context. So, why not keep them in a Unix specific > namespace? If we have several elements that are platform-independent, why > not keep them in a specific namespace, like e.g "System"? > > As the number of units of the fpc increases, keeping related elements > logically organized can even facilitate maintenance tasks. > > To a novice like me, would be easier to locate and to identify what > elements which are present in a e.g Windows.API.Messages or > Windows.API.Mutex unit than in a huge Windows unit. > > > 2013/10/25 Michael Van Canneyt <mich...@freepascal.org> > >> >> >> On Fri, 25 Oct 2013, Marco van de Voort wrote: >> >> No one forces anything. You can perfectly set the default namespace to >>>> 'fpc' (or whatever) in the default config file, and all should compile >>>> as it was. >>>> >>> >>> Yes. One can live with the XE2+ renaming at the cost of renaming units, >>> potentially fixing breakage later, and a lot of adaptation of existing >>> configuration, scripts etc. >>> >>> But I repeat: what is the hurry? >>> >> >> I am not hurrying anything. >> >> Where did you see me saying anything about timeframes ? >> The necessary default namespace support is not even there. >> >> I'm discussing principles, not timeframes. >> >> And the issue of compatibility: It is a bogus discussion, you know this >> as well as I do. >> If Delphi itself is not compatible between versions, then we cannot do so >> either, and must choose a version to which we are compatible (2 versions if >> you accept/count the 1-byte RTL). >> >> Whether that turns out to be D2009 or DXE1/2/3/4/5: I honestly couldn't >> care less. >> >> Michael. >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> fpc-pascal maillist - >> fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.**org<fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org> >> http://lists.freepascal.org/**mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal<http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
