1. Re: More Namespace
Gabriel wrote:
>So, instead of changing the scope rules of "global" identifiers, I would
>propose a new scope identifier: "public".
>
>"public" identifiers would be required to follow the rules laid out by Ralf
>N., while the "global" identifiers would work just as they always have.
>
>Now yes, this will still require programmers to go back into all their
>programs and include files to change "global" to "public" -- but even if
>they don't, the programs and include files WILL STILL WORK! No code will be
>"broken" by this change -- a new (and more preferable) alternative will
>simply be made available to the programmer.
>
>Anyway, that's my $0.02 worth on this subject...
>
>Gabriel Boehme
>
>----------
>"Begin with the possible and move gradually towards the impossible."
>
>Robert Fripp
>----------
Gabriel,
I like the way you think. I haven't worked my way through all the possible
contortions on this, but this IS the way to make changes to a language.
Break as little as possible while adding to capability. Note other items
that I think are necessary to go with this in my reply to Ralf.
