2013/10/27 Marco van de Voort <mar...@stack.nl> > In our previous episode, Fabr?cio Srdic said: > > > used in Java and .NET as either languages don't have "units". > > > Adding "features" just because "enterpise-class dev platforms" have > them > > > is more marketing move, than actual technical need. > > > > > > > We can't nest units to form a hierarchical content. With namespaces, we > > can. > > Yes. But that doesn't need renaming all existing units. It is that part > that > I think that is excessive. > > Embarcadero did it probably to keep their hands free for some long term VCL > phase-out (IOW that they wouldn't have to rename FM to avoid VCL names). > > We don't have any major such problems, and thus renaming everything is a > bit > draconical to me. At least till we really have a reason to do so. > > > Furthermore, namespaces can be used to disambiguate identifiers with > > the same name, eliminating the need to prefix our identifiers. > > That is the main reason why it is added to so many languages; > > BUT, Unit based Pascal never had that problem, since units already have > their own namespace. > > Namespaces are only for pseudo hierarchical disambiguation of unit names in > Pascal. > > _______________________________________________ > fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org > http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal >
In my opinion, the change of the fpc's base units to use namespaces is a positive change. The side effect is that requires adjustment of the existing codebase. I believe there are some approaches to address this problem, if the fpc dev team decide to namespace base units. Maybe, unit aliasing can be used.
_______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
