[fpc-pascal] Ideas for namespace implementation

Thierry Coq tcoq at free.fr
Mon Jul 26 19:26:08 CEST 2010

Like Michael,

I see units as namespaces already existing: we use the unit names to 
prefix ambiguous function or variable names for example.

In addition, units are similar (but simpler) to Ada packages, which are 
much more robust than namespaces. If we want to go the full way, let's 
implement Ada packages instead of namespaces, by extending the unit 
concept. (see here for an example : http://www.adaic.org/whyada/intro4.html)

Let's not add yet another concept to manage the naming. Units and types 
are enough. One issue is for example, what would happen to the interface 
and implementation of units, if an additional namespace is introduced? 
How would the conflicts be managed? Would there be private units or 
public units?

I vote for robust Ada packages, if we need them. Such packages can form 
a hierarchy, can be visible or not from other packages. In addition, we 
would have the ability to separately compile the interface and the 
implementation sections of the unit, which is not possible currently 
with FPC.


On 26/07/2010 15:16, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> Hi,
> I created a wiki page for this to consolidate ideas.
>    http://wiki.freepascal.org/Namespaces
> Regards,
>    - Graeme -
> _______________________________________________
> fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal at lists.freepascal.org
> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

More information about the fpc-pascal mailing list