Re: using `use' : what is the best practice ?

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 18:29:48 +0100, Simon Wright wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> 
>> Because
>> otherwise they would have to mention *all* implicitly or explicitly
>> referenced packages in "with" clauses. This mammoth task would go to waste.
> 
> Perhaps that's why the language designers didn't go that way.

It was different in n 80s, projects were much smaller. There were almost no
reusable components. You could really gasp all relationships between your
packages. The structure of packages was very rigid, designed up front.

In these days this is just unrealistic, so the coding style must adapt and
the language should provide some support. I would prefer stricter rules on
declarations hiding each other (requiring explicit resolution of all
conflicts) [*]. I definitely want a stronger than "use", transitive clause
to incorporate the declaration scope of a package into the scope of another
package. I would like to have multiple parents too.

-----------------------
* When people play this card against MI, they forget that packages allow
exactly same. And if fully qualified names were a solution for packages,
why it could not be for MI as well?

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de