From: Ondrej Bilka <neleai@...>
Date: 2009-02-25T07:00:48+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:22426] Re: YASNP (Yet Another Selector Namespace	Proposal)

+1 to per-file
block would only give some superflows intendation.
use Foo:A do
	use Bar:B do
		use Baz:C do
			some
			code
		end
	end
end

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 07:12:26PM +0100, Yehuda Katz wrote:
> I don't think it's important that it be at the top of the file, but it does
> need to be a keyword.
> 
> -- Yehuda
> 
> 2009/2/24 Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@sun.com>
> 
> > Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> >
> >> +1 to have some kind of selector namespace (it's planned for 2.0
> >> anyway), but -1 for using block (or block-like syntax) to denote
> >> namespace scope, because
> >>
> >>  * it's not really a block
> >>  * too small granularity for namespace switching might bring confusion
> >>
> >> I'd prefer per file namespace switching.
> >>
> >
> > I think it's impossible to have per-file without making "use" a special
> > keyword, ideally at the top of the file. The block syntax made more sense to
> > me because I knew exactly when it started and ended, and a 'use' later in
> > the file did not affect code that came before it. Also, the example where I
> > have both a namespace and a 'use' in the same file would be impossible if
> > the use applied to the whole file.
> >
> > I'm willing to mock up anything else we want to try, including a whole-file
> > version.
> >
> > - Charlie
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Yehuda Katz
> Developer | Engine Yard
> (ph) 718.877.1325

-- 

those damn raccoons!