From: Kent Dahl <kentda+news@...>
Date: 2003-08-13T01:24:08+09:00
Subject: Re: Nested class/module namespace

Nathaniel Talbott wrote:
> The new ability to declare a class nested in another module (or class)
> without actually re-declaring the outer module is cool, BUT:
[...]
> Why does the second case fail? It makes me not want to use the second
> version, since it means I have to fully-qualify all constants in the
> enclosing namespace, instead of just using them as I usually do. I hope it's
> just a bug :-/.

I can't help thinking that it might be a feature, not a bug.

Class and module provide namespaces. In the old style, we could not help 
but opening all the layers of modules (and thusly their namespaces) when 
defining a class within them.

With the new style, we get a cleaner, neater and minimalistic namespace, 
where we can include those namespaces we want. (With the exception of 
nested classes, but a work-around for that only requires a little 
refactoring).

So unless "class M::C" and friends is just meant to be syntactic sugar, 
(phoey!) this might help us create cleaner code, IMHO. I wouldn't write 
it off as a bug just yet.

-- 
(\[ Kent Dahl ]/)_    _~_    _____[ http://www.pvv.org/~kentda/ ]_____/~
  ))\_student_/((  \__d L b__/ (pre-) Master of Science in Technology  )
( \__\_�|�_/__/ ) _)Industrial economics and technological management(
  \____/_�_\____/ (____engineering.discipline_=_Computer::Technology___)