2009/3/29 Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>:
I think class GUID is orthogonal to namespace. I still would be able to argue really why GUID for classes are good (I mean really scientifically).
Let argue then :) A GUID , as for me, is a simple and logical extension of object identity concept. An object identity used heavily in many different scenarios in smalltalk. A GUID also enables to identify objects not only for single image, but also beyond it.
From 'scientific' point of view, there is no problems, as to me - for computer its no difference what you using to identify objects - by name or by GUID. But for humans, this is a problem, because this no longer true, and name losing its role as a way to identify objects. This is where namespaces can get in play and help.
P.S. i also thinking, that GUID could be made as a special subclass of Symbol. GUIDs are unique and immutable - same characteristics for defining a Symbol.
Stef
On Mar 28, 2009, at 9:14 PM, Markus Fritsche wrote:
Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
if you want to have a modular system then sharing a falt space is not ideal.
Which walls? Ambiguity?
I just think if the approach of Craig, using something like GUIDs during Class creation, and then referring to those GUIDs would be more practical than to use namespaces.
Namespaces proved to be a pain in the ass with several implementations, as your "import *" example shows. We need to circumvent that...
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.