RE: Namespace improvement ?
- Posted by Chris Bensler <bensler at nt.net> Feb 03, 2005
- 458 views
Verne Tice wrote: > > > posted by: Verne Tice <fredfarkle at highstream.net> > > 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 Because that's a band-aid solution and doesn't actually solve the problem. I dislike hacks and shims. Hacks perpetuate more hacks. I would rather do it right once than do it poorly 10 times. Chris Bensler Code is Alchemy