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. Stef On Mar 27, 2009, at 8:32 AM, Torsten Bergmann wrote:
FYI: see http://www.squeaksource.com/Names.html
MIT License -- Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger01
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project