OpenEuphoria

Re: . or : for namespace?

• Posted by Mike <vulcan at wi?.?o.nz> May 06, 2008
• 689 views

CChris wrote:
> 
> Mike wrote:
> > 
> > CChris wrote:
> > > 
> > > Mike wrote:
> > > > 

-- snip

> > So, basically we have :
> > 
> > obsfucation OR lack of freedom + nice looking 
> > 
> 
> Where?
> Namespaces are not that many. Do you mean you don't know which identifier is
> a namespace? Really?
> 
> CChris

Yes. And you don't either. Noone does. That's the point.

I know that you're smart enough to _quickly_ figure out what's going on but not
all of us are so gifted. And I don't think we should have to be. I read
somewhere
that about 70% of programming is maintenance rather than just coding. So, it is
important to easily comprehend program texts.

Jeremy (correctly) predicts that namespaces will become much more common.
Defining
the . instead of : as the namespace operator now, will make it impossible to
later avoid confusing references if the . is then used for sequence access.

It should be pointed out that by having different operators, we can preserve
the unwritten assumption that the number of nesting levels should correspond
to the number of nesting operators.

There are good semantic benefits to keeping : as namespace operator. The only
advantage for using . is that it is nicer looking. I have yet to see advocates
of . present an argument stronger than that.

Think I'm full of horse droppings? Well, you're welcome to prove me wrong.

regards,
Mike