From: "James A. Robertson" <jarober@...>
Date: 2001-11-26T10:25:25+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:26480] Re: Selector Namespaces: A Standard Feature for Smalltalk?

Doc O'Leary wrote:

> In article <Su_L7.44988$RG1.23138548@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com>, David
> Simmons <david.simmons@smallscript.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>What we would like is some mechanism to ensure that the two different
>>versions of #size remain independent. Selector namespaces directly solve
>>this issue.
>>
> 
> Actually, they don't.  The real issue in this case is that a
> subclass/method intended for the 1.0.0.0 version of BitTracker is being
> applied to the 2.0 version.  To directly address this problem, you
> would do something about the:


Actually, they do.  Take Smalltalk - I load a component like Distributed 
Smalltalk into the system.  It overrides the Object>>#printOn: method.

I now load some other component - someone's custom inspector framework. 
  It also overrides Object>>printOn:

I <want> to use both - having selector level namespaces would solve 
this, while versioning doesn't help me <at all>.


> 
> Requires module: BitTracker. "version constraints elided"
> 
> part of the issue.  Modern systems are already pretty good when it
> comes to issues of version managment.  Namespaces, as is so often the
> case, don't really solve the problem here and unnecessarily complicate
> matters.
>