Re: Too many namespaces
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Sep 16, 2013
- 3823 views
I did not suggest that Namespaces were there for performance. I merely suggest that the application programmer should not have to worry at all
1. about duplicating a name that exists in a module he is going to use; 2. about using explicitly a name in the Euphoria library, which he knows is most probably there and would have a prefix he remebers. Preferably there should be only 1-6 prefixes and not 50-100 include_namespace: as there is at present.
You are contradicting yourself by requiring authors to make unique names. Reducing the number of prefixes makes this task harder.
Euphoia should have only one namespace or if needed, perhaps 3-5 namespaces. Over the years you have been incorporating good .e and .ex from various contributors; that is fine but they should become completely a part of Euphoria, and similar additions should be infrequent. Anything outside of that should be considered "having an affair" with somebody else's wife and the application programmer should suffer the consequence of philandering.
To continue with the analogy, if the application programmer wants to have this "affair" often, he should house that "girl friend" in separate accommodation, "re-dress" and "re-name" her, making her his special concubine. Euphoria's one or four wives (namespace(s)) would not be concerned with these concubines and the concubines would not have to worry about the wife (wives)
WTF are you talking about? Again, you contradict yourself by suggesting a solution that makes the problem worse. Namespaces accomplish exactly what you claim to value, so I can't understand why you want to go backward and make this more difficult.
And from what bodily orifice did you pull "3-5 namespaces?" What would they be? Would you arbitrarily group things together that have nothing in common? Have you actually taken a look at the standard library? It doesn't sound like you have.
Matt
