From: Mark Hahn <mchahn@...>
Date: 2001-12-06T03:19:21+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:27582] Re: Package Naming

This will work now in a small space like Ruby has, but when Ruby grows we
would regret such ambiguities.   If Java had an ambiguous naming convention
it would be disaster right now.  Adding a package could require arbitrarily
large number of lines of code be changed.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng" <hgs@dmu.ac.uk>
To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 6:07 AM
Subject: [ruby-talk:27548] Re: Package Naming


> This, below, is somewhat half-baked, but:
>
> If we are to have a tree, could it be an ordered tree?  That way people
> need only specify enough to say which part of the tree the package is
> in, and if there is ambiguity, the first one wins.
>
> With warnings available about ambiguity resolution, any possible
> conflicts need not be hard to trace, and it would simplify the names
> users of modules need use. So (to pick an example with a long name)
> Pink Floyd's module
>
>
Several::Species::Small::Furry::Animals::Gathered_together_in::Cave::Groovin
g_with::Pict
>
> need only be specified as (something like) "...::Animals::...::Pict"
>
> This would not be confused by some hypothetical cover version by The
> Animals, because the Pink Floyd one would be first, if we get the
> ordering right.  People would be free to use the long names if they
> wished.
>
> If it were ordered you could interate over it, like ObjectSpace...
>
> Hugh
>