26 Nov
2007
26 Nov
'07
4:49 p.m.
Hi,
I uploaded the beta 14 version of Famix that Adrian sent a while back:
http://moose.unibe.ch/docs/famix/famix3.0/famix3.0beta14
In this solution Namespace and Package share the same superclass
(Scoped). The idea would be to put in Scoped the common behavior.
As I said before, from a modeling point of view it's not that nice.
But from a pragmatic reason, it might be.
I would rather favor modeling over implementation, but it would be
good to hear other points of view :).
Cheers,
Doru
On Nov 26, 2007, at 2:13 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Not really since java packages have more scope than Smalltalk ones.
See what johan is saying.
--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"Being happy is a matter of choice."
I thought about it and I would like to have
java package -> extracted as package
smalltalk package -> as package
smalltalk namespace -> as namespace
Is it what you had in mind?
I don't necessarily think that package equals namespace in Java
either. There are the same amount of namespaces as packages, but
unlike packages, the namespaces are not nested, right? Well on the other hand, namespaces are obviously
deducable from java
packages, so I guess it makes sense to just have packages and write
code to get the namespace info (which is more or less important
because package belongsTo != namespace belongsTo for java).
You lost me.
What is your opinion about the matter?
@Sandro: get involved , this concerns you too, obviously :)
Yes please. I would like that we arrive to a kind of consensu
My goal is to see if we can avoid duplicating navigation logic such as
a method (in A) refers to a class (B)
so a class (A) refers to another class (B),
so a package(A) refers to package (B)
In the past we duplicated all the logic for package in namespace too.
And this is not cool.
Stef
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev