From: Robert Dober <robert.dober@...>
Date: 2008-04-12T02:13:55+09:00
Subject: Re: Designing Namespaces

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 6:29 PM, ara.t.howard <ara.t.howard@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  On Apr 11, 2008, at 9:28 AM, Trans wrote:
>
> >
> > What are other people experiences with all this? Do you find it better
> > use highly categorized namespaces and to stick with namespace/filename
> > mapping? Or have you too found alternates organizations you prefer?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
>
>  child classes should be inner classes - saves a ton of typing
>
>
>  class WindInstrument
>
>   class Trumpet < WindInstrument
>   end
>
>   class Carinet < WindInstrument
>   end
>
>  end
>
>
>  and then use shortcuts
>
>
>  def Music.trumpet *a, &b
>
>   if a.empty? and b.nil?
>
>     WindInstrument::Trumpet
>
>   else
>
>    WindInstrument::Trumpet.new *a, &b
>
>  end
>
>
>  trumpet = Music.trumpet(arg, arg){ block }
>
>
>  so the two main concepts are:
>
>  - nest classes under parent
>  - assign shortcuts
>
>  i'm not strict with that - but both are useful for maintaining sanity.  i
> esp like
>
>   children = Parent.constants.select{|c| Parent > Parent.const_get(c)}
>
>  not that code - but you get the idea
>
>  a @ http://codeforpeople.com/
>  --
>  we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being
> better. simply reflect on that.
>  h.h. the 14th dalai lama
>
>
>
>
>
Very interesting approach Ara, allow me to express some skepticism
about the shortcut delivering either the class or an instance of it.
The idea is sure enough brilliant as a solution to name pollution, I
wonder however if it is not a maintenance trap...
Now if it became a well known pattern this danger would go away. In
order to easier recognize the pattern I would suggest to use
Capitalized names for your shortcut/factory methods. How does that feel?

Cheers
Robert


-- 
http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/

---
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Ludwig Wittgenstein