My namespace proposal described in Yet Another Try

> On 9/21/07, Chris Muller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Well I have to admit, there seems to be no harm in doing Göran's
> > proposal.  It's an incremental step forward that should buy us a LOT
> > of time, probably as much as we'll ever need.  Also, like he said,
> > does not preclude migrating to any other namespace solutions in the
> > future.
>
> But it can be harm.  Not to pick on traits, but to take it as an
> example.  Have they helped?  Andreas at least doesn't think so, and we
> still haven't seen conclusive evidence that they are going to help as
> implemented.  If they turn out to be a bad idea how are they going to
> get ripped out again?
>
> And that's something that isn't even getting used that much.  The
> namespaces will probably be used very quickly.  I'm surprised there
> are no packages that depend on them already.
>
>

> On 9/21/07, Ramon Leon <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > We use two letter prefixes because we're forced to see them and type them
> > constantly, with Göran's proposal, it'd be much more common to use
> > Magritte:: or Magma:: as the prefix since you wouldn't be typing it, it'd
> > resolve naturally when you just used the short class name.  Granted this
> > doesn't help existing packages with short prefixes, but it'd help new code.
> > If it worked well, I'd sure take the time to rename my code to use it.
>
> I have a question:  What is stopping you from using them right now
> today?  Most of what you write is for private use, no?  If so you can
> use namespaces until your hearts content.  You could even make scripts
> to change Magritte and co to switch to the namespaces when loaded into
> your image, so that you don't have to type the prefixes anymore.
>
> Why do you need this to be in the default image to use it for private code?
>
>