Re: Order of cluster searching with ace file (recent snapshot)

Cyril ADRIAN wrote:
> (still playing the devil's advocate...)
>> For this kind of situation, I would recommend to change at least one
>> name. If the concepts are the same, may be we could use only one
>> class by merging the two initial classes. If concepts are different,
>> two new long name are better.
> Yes, but, what if the libraries are third-parties? After all that's
> the aim of libraries: reuse... Do you need to manually rename every
> class?
If the concept is the same and has to be shared, it must be separated
in some external (new) library.
Anyway, in such a situation, people have to negociate in order to
select different names or in order to merge the concept in a
single class.
> Or do we need to stick to our "poor man's namespace" class names?
Yes I think.
>> Afterall, there is no multiple namespaces in Smalltalk and they
>> are building very complex applications.
> Sure. How do they do that? Just curious.
Negociation and VeryLongClassNamesToSpeakSmalltalk.
This is the most simple solution. With our "poor man's namespace"
we can probably avoid too long names for internal clashes.

Now, just two ideas to improve our "poor man's namespace".
1 - classes inside some "internal" sub-cluster must not escape
outside of the containing-cluster. Do you see what I mean?
2 - May be we could also decide to tag each cluster to indicate
that class names can escape or not... just a fresh idea.
Half baked ;-)

Anyway, I am really against adding a new notation inside Eiffel
source files. My be we should just try our "poor man's namespace"
to see how it works in practice.

A+
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------
[email protected] -- IUT (Nancy 2) -- INRIA Lorraine
http://SmartEiffel.loria.fr  --  The GNU Eiffel Compiler
POST: Loria, B.P. 239,54506 Vandoeuvre les Nancy Cedex, FRANCE
Voice:+33 0383913140 Mobile: +33 0665362381 Fax:+33 0383913201