Re: [Oorexx-devel] Need some feedback on a new feature.

[David A. <w.d...@gm...>]

I prefer the namespace:name version. It seems more hierarchical.

David Ashley

On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 18:52 -0400, Rick McGuire wrote:
> One of the features I've been working on is a concept of namespaces
> that can be used to disambiguate information pulled in from
> different ::requires files.  The basis if this is a new NAMESPACE
> option on the ::requires directive where you give a simple name to a
> loaded requires file.  
> 
> 
> ::requires 'some.file' namespace somename 
> 
> 
> Once a requires file has been tagged with a namespace name, it can be
> used to qualify references to classes within that namespace explicitly
> identify which version you want.  As part of this, there is a special
> reserved namespace of REXX that will allow you to always get to the
> interpreter-provided version of things.  
> 
> 
> My thoughts on how the namespace is specified builds on what is done
> with the message syntax for message sends where we have things like 
> 
> 
> init~self:super  
> 
> 
> Where the first token is the target name, the part after the colon is
> the qualifier.  This works for namespaces, but part of me thinks this
> might be better with the qualifier first.  
> 
> 
> There are multiple places where this will show up.  
> 
> 
> 1) .variables.  This will allow things like .array:rexx~new...or
> should this be .rexx:array~new?  
> 
> 
> 2) ::class directives. 
> 
> 
>    ::class foo subclass rexx:object (or should it be object:rexx). 
> 
> 
> 3) Potentially on function calls and call instructions.  Again, should
> it be qualifier first or second?
> 
> 
> The more I look at this, the more I think it should be namespace:name
> rather than name:namespace, but this is the reverse of the method name
> convention.  These are not strictly the the same concept, but it is
> different.  What do others think?
> 
> 
> Rick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
> Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
> Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
> Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> Oor...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel