RE: Namespace improvement ?
- Posted by Verne Tice <fredfarkle at highstream.net> Feb 03, 2005
- 468 views
Chris Bensler wrote: > > > Georg Wrede wrote: > > <SNIP> > > > Of course this may crap up a lot of existing code. Since I don't have > > code of my own that is affected by this, I feel QUALIFIED > > to think about this "objectively". > > > > I think this is a pretty important issue. > > > > -- Another Euphoric, since Nov. 18, 2004 -- > > Realistically, it would break most everybody's code. > However, the transition would be very minor (change all cases of > "include foo" to "global include foo"). I deal with worse scenarios, > just trying to rectify the mess that namespacing makes. > > Chris Bensler Then, If you don't want to break existing code (or future code based on today's rules why not make the change: "local include foo" to make foo's globals actually local to the including file? This would simply require that the new behavior be invoked explicity. Verne Tice