[fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Ideas for namespace implementation

[Martin]

On 26/07/2010 16:34, Sven Barth wrote:
>>> It's not about not having to type the "fully qualified name", but
>>> about not having to rename/prefix my own units, because they conflict
>>> with an existing unit.
>>
>> Ok, so that means:
>> If refering to the unit, or any element in it, you always have to use
>> the full namespace:
>> uses my.utils;
>> var a: my.utils.TFoo;
>>
>> that is, inside the unit that uses the other unit, the other units name
>> is effectively "my.utils" => with the dot being part of the name
>>
>> If writing a unit, that is to be in a namespace you can do
>> unit utils namespace my;
>> but that is no different from doing
>> unit my.utils;
>>
>
>
> Not exactly, because
>
> 1)
>
> "unit utils namespace my" resides in "utils.pas"
>
> while
>
> "unit my.utils" resides in "my.utils.pas" (Delphi compatible).
>
> (no usage of compiler switch -Un here)

That is a question of who the compiler is implemented to interpret this.
"unit my.utils" could well reside in utils.pas


> 2)
>
> You can still do a
>
> uses
>   utils;
>
> with the namespace approach. The namespace-identifier is only needed 
> if you want/need to avoid a conflict.

Now we are going in circles....

that is the whole point I have been making for several males.

The use of not fully qualified unit names is pure evil => it leads to 
mis interpretion by the reader.

Telling the implementor, that he can use "sysutils" as unit name, will 
lead to the implementor doing eaxtly this => and the reader will be confused



Martin