Re: But is it Object-Oriented?
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.nice.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Quoting Daniel Bonniot <[email protected]>: > > >Or we could simplify: only visible within a package, visible where-ever > >the package is imported - default (package) and public. > > > > > I think I would miss private. Not very often, but sometimes it's good to > make sure this feature is only accessed from the code you have before > your eyes. The user manual suggests that we should organize code in a bunch of small packages. If packages are supposed to be small, do we really need to be able to split them into multiple files? Having so much code that you need multiple files is a good indication that you need multiple packages, IMO. Also, personally, I would rather have all my nice code for a program in a single directory : ocl/ ocl.syntax.abstract.nice ocl.syntax.concrete.nice ocl.eval.smallstep.nice ocl.eval.bigstep.nice ocl.prettyprint.nice ocl.typecheck.nice util/ util.logging.nice util.check.nice nicec -sourcepath util *.nice nicec -sourcepath ocl -classpath util *.nice instead of split up into multiple nested directories like in Java: ocl/ syntax/ abstract/ ocl.syntax.abstract.nice concrete/ ocl.syntax.concrete.nice eval/ bigstep/ ocl.eval.bigstep.nice smallstep/ ocl.eval.smallstep.nice prettyprint/ ocl.prettyprint.nice typecheck/ ocl.typecheck.nice util/ logging/ util.logging.nice check/ util.check.nice But, this change would basically require a single-file-per-package mapping. - Brian ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click