[fpc-devel] is that intended? private type section in classes versus visibility
fpc at mfriebe.de
Sun Jul 25 18:28:45 CEST 2010
On 25/07/2010 16:59, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> Having a language feature to accommodate other
> projects would be nice - after all, most other languages have accepted
> the chance of conflicting ideas (unit names, class names, etc) and
> introduced namespace support in the language.
Namespaces are only solving the problem, if they (the namespace) are by
some means guaranteed to be truly unique.
If they are guaranteed, then they are only needed, if this guarantee can
for some reasons not be made for the next lower level (e.g units)
If you make namespaces based on the directory, in which a unit is => and
fpc allows to have several unit search pathes => then you can find the
same directory structure (and therefore same name-space) in several
places => the problem still exists.
If you base them on domains, company names, etc => you may have a hope
that no one else will do something bad. But no one stops me from
creating a namespace "fpgui" anywhere I want (well ijn hte RTL, FCL the
fpc team can (and will) stop me).
But then they used the same prefix, of which you thought it would be
unique to your project forever => so what gurantees it isn't going to
happen the same with namespaces ?
More information about the fpc-devel