On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 6:17 AM, St�phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:

Thanks
see http://www.squeaksource.com/Namespace.html we did that some years
ago
But we have to change its design because we separated trait/class/
global binding and it was not good.

I think that we need namespaces but not a la VW. So names seems good
(but I can be wrong)

About Names...
� � � �- import: '*' is not a so good design decision (we see it daily with
Java) but it is probably necessary.
� � � �- One namespace per category wow! Probably for a start. :) but
clearly if we want one per package (which I hope
� � � �we want).
� � � �- The export clause is nice to have (even if I'm not sure about
export: from: since export from itself self can be
� � � �more important than from another namespace).

� � � �All in all even if I can often argue with andreas I like his design
(may be I'm wrong).
� � � �I like the fact that there is no nesting. I prefer that design if I
understand it correctly
� � � �over macro like expansion as proned by goran (even if his solution
was backward compatible).
� � � �It is close to what we did with �http://www.squeaksource.com/Namespace.html
�( we did not have an export
� � � �close if I remember correctly but were thinking about adding one).
� � � �Now I would like to see where we defined them. Ideally I would put
them on Package.