From: Reinhard M. <ma...@tc...> - 2006-01-31 17:47:19
|
Hi, On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 at 09:31, Andreas Kupries wrote: > > I see no need here to make the command names even longer by adding > > a level of sub-namespaces. > > I am not convinced of that argument for not using a namespace. And what was the argument again for using a new namespace? > We can always use 'namespace export/import' + aliases to create > short names. My understanding was that [namespace import] needs to be used with care, because it might lead to confusion, especially if the new procs have names like [read] and [write] that exist in the global namespace already and might exist in other namespaces as well. Wasn't it the default recommendation for library writers to use qualified names instead of importing everything? I like the fact that Tcl is much more explicit and verbose than languages like Perl, but I think we have to take care that we don't overstress this feature by creating long paths of nested namespaces unless they are really necessary, which I don't see in this case. BTW, how about setting the "reply-to list" option for this mailing list? cu Reinhard |