[fpc-pascal] Ideas for namespace implementation

Marcos Douglas md at delfire.net
Tue Jul 27 16:27:11 CEST 2010

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Martin <fpc at mfriebe.de> wrote:
> [snip]
>> IMO, if there is no further concept of child units (maybe similar to Ada)
>> there is no point in adding namespaces to FPC, it's not worth the trouble.
>> After all, it's still a name and if somebody else already uses it, you still
>> need another to disambiguate.
> Yes, Namespaces (those on top of units) will inherit the same conflict
> problem that units have. That is as long as the inherit the same source...
> That means, if the namespace for a unit is given to that unit by the writer
> of that unit, then 2 writers of 2 units will eventually give the same
> namespace to equally named units....
> *if*, but what is if not. What is if the namespace is not set by the writer
> of the unit, but instead of that by the user of the unit.
> The user will always know if 2 units do conflict => so he can then set a
> namespaces => and because the user (as in the writer of the final program)
> knows already all the names, and decides all the namespaces himself => there
> will be no conflict.

As I said:
> But if you can CHOOSE the name of alias for the units of others
> programmers, in MY project, then I can see a possible solution, don't
> you?

> that can be done by giving the namespace to an include path -Fu / -FU (if
> necessary recursive)
> => only draw back, you have to do it equally for every PC /installation that
> you use....
>   (unless the  UUID thing....)
> Then again, it is only worth the bother, if someone actually deems it worth
> his/her time to implement it....


More information about the fpc-pascal mailing list