On Sun, 6 Aug 2006, chromatic wrote: > > Any reason to treat HLL namespaces differently from classes, at > > least in respect of being an inheritance hierachy?
> Preventative measures against future additions to 'parrot' breaking > your code without your knowledge. It's the same reason many languages > without namespaces or sigils have a sense of reserved keywords. The naive reaction to this is that if you define ['myHLL';'foo'] then whether ['parrot';'foo'] is defined (or later becomes defined) is of no concern. However there are two cases I can see where ['parrot';'foo'] must NOT exist: 1. if myHLL needs to search by some other order, such as the first of: ['myHLL';'foo'] ['myHLL';'bar'] ['parrot';'foo'] ['parrot';'bar'] 2. if myHLL does not actually define ['myHLL';'foo'] but then checks to see if it's usable, and would find ['parrot';'foo'] via the normal inheriting framework. But how often are these actually likely to be the case, and are there any other cases? -Martin
