[Better Comment Initiative]: FAMIXPackage

>
> we have
>
> FAMIXPackage represents a package in the source language.
>
> A package is different from a namespace (FAMIXNamespace). They both provide a scope, but the namespace does it from a language perspective. For example, in Java concept of package maps both on the FAMIXNamespace and on a FAMIXPackage:
> - it is a FAMIXNamespace because it provides a lexical scope for the contained entities, and
> - it is a FAMIXPackage because it describes the physical structure of the system.
>
> I propose
>
>
> FAMIXPackage represents a package in the source language, but when the language only mean grouping of entities without scoping.
> The scoping aspect is captured by FAMIXNamespace.
>
> A package is different from a namespace (FAMIXNamespace). A package defines simply a group of entities. A namespace scopes a group of entities (it may implement
> an import, a name lookup). For example, in Java concept of package maps both on the FAMIXNamespace and on a FAMIXPackage:
> - it is a FAMIXNamespace because it provides a lexical scope for the contained entities, and
> - it is a FAMIXPackage because it describes the physical structure of the system.
>
> FAMIX extractor usually map Java package to FAMIXNamespace for these reasons.
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

> I did a pass over it and now we have:
>
> "FAMIXPackage represents a package in the source language, meaning that it provides a means to group entities without any baring on lexical scoping.
>
> A package is different from a namespace (FAMIXNamespace). A package defines simply a group of entities. A namespace scopes a group of entities (it may implement
> an import, a name lookup). For example, in Java concept of package maps both on the FAMIXNamespace and on a FAMIXPackage:
> - it is a FAMIXNamespace because it provides a lexical scope for the contained entities, and
> - it is a FAMIXPackage because it describes the physical structure of the system.
>
> For example, Java extractors map Java packages to FAMIXNamespaces for these reasons. They can also mirror the same information in terms of FAMIXPackage instances."
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
>
> On 31 Oct 2011, at 00:03, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>
>>
>> we have
>>
>> FAMIXPackage represents a package in the source language.
>>
>> A package is different from a namespace (FAMIXNamespace). They both provide a scope, but the namespace does it from a language perspective. For example, in Java concept of package maps both on the FAMIXNamespace and on a FAMIXPackage:
>> - it is a FAMIXNamespace because it provides a lexical scope for the contained entities, and
>> - it is a FAMIXPackage because it describes the physical structure of the system.
>>
>> I propose
>>
>>
>> FAMIXPackage represents a package in the source language, but when the language only mean grouping of entities without scoping.
>> The scoping aspect is captured by FAMIXNamespace.
>>
>> A package is different from a namespace (FAMIXNamespace). A package defines simply a group of entities. A namespace scopes a group of entities (it may implement
>> an import, a name lookup). For example, in Java concept of package maps both on the FAMIXNamespace and on a FAMIXPackage:
>> - it is a FAMIXNamespace because it provides a lexical scope for the contained entities, and
>> - it is a FAMIXPackage because it describes the physical structure of the system.
>>
>> FAMIX extractor usually map Java package to FAMIXNamespace for these reasons.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moose-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
>
> "From an abstract enough point of view, any two things are similar."
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev