Re: Do you currently use namespaces?
ken mortenson wrote:
>
> With regard to usage. Are we looking at the use of namespaces being
> sort of all or nothing? I'm not saying it would be a requirement, but once
> you start leaning on namespaces to solve collisions, you would tend to
> have every include be given a name?
It's not a requirement, though some people already code this way. Namespaces
are the way in which you can resolve a collision. There's also going to
be the ability to specify a default namespace for your library, which users
could use.
> Will there be instances where you didn't give an include a namespace and
> find that later you must? Like adding a new lib to your project? This may
> not be a top level include, requiring a hunt through who knows how many
> files (depending on project size.)
Yes. If you didn't specify a namespace, it's very possible that a later
addition to your application could conflict with some other symbol that
didn't need any qualifier previously.
> While the usage may be consistant, you might have an issue with consistant
> usage? I suspect I'm not being clear.
Yeah, I'm not even trying to parse that one. :)
> It's just my gut, but this paradigm may not be resolvable regardless of
> the fineness. I believe there is a fundamental flaw in the concept of
> trying to fix the issues inherent with using includes as the application
> gets more complex. I know that classes resolves the issue. The problem
> of course is implementing classes when you are on track to use includes.
>
> I need to be more specific of course, but I need to think for awhile.
Classes only resolve the issue until you have multiple classes with the
same name. I disagree with the main assertion, however. I believe that
at this point it is totally possible to resolve any conflict with the
tools that we have. By this, I mean that it should be possible to combine
any [working!] third party code into a single application without having to
modify any of the third party code.
The information hiding is actually not *required* for this, though it could
make the job easier by reducing the amount of symbols available to any
particular scope.
Matt
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
