RE: [Tcllib-devel] More file utilities ?

[Andreas K. <and...@Ac...>]

> 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?

None from me so far. From Lars we have that these commands are about
manipulating the contents of files, whereas the existing ones are not about
directly content, or at less so (His reference to 'cat' underminded that
argument a bit).

> > 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.

True.

> Wasn't it the default recommendation for library writers to use
> qualified names instead of importing everything?

Library users you mean, I guess. This rings a bell, albeit not very hard. If
you can find a reference to this please post.

> 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,

Heh.

> which I don't see in this case.

I haven't made any decision yet. I will now digest all the opinions and
comments for a day or two and then come up with the next iteration of the
proposal, maybe even manpages.

>
> BTW, how about setting the "reply-to list" option for this mailing
> list?

It isn't ? It might be that the LookOut is not recognizing it. I am manually
trimming the receiver-list when responding, might have forgotten for one of
my replies.


--
	Andreas Kupries <and...@Ac...>
	Developer @ http://www.ActiveState.com, a division of Sophos
	Tel: +1 604 484 6491