| Default Package [message #1157] |
Mon, 16 April 2007 00:43  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
With Ruby (I assume it's there for the other languages too) there ia always a default package, which
just adds an unnecessary level of indirection. I'd prefer that it wasn't there, any other opinions?
Thanks
Mark
|
|
|
| Re: Default Package [message #1184 is a reply to message #1157] |
Mon, 16 April 2007 07:46  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi Mark,
Short question: do you wish to avoid default package at API level or
just from end-user experience point of view? My quick and dirty oppinion
that it would be easy to remove default package visually, but it is
reasonable to have it in code for logic unification... Guys, please
share your thoughts and/or correct me.
Kind Regards,
Andrey
Mark Howe wrote:
> With Ruby (I assume it's there for the other languages too) there ia
> always a default package, which just adds an unnecessary level of
> indirection. I'd prefer that it wasn't there, any other opinions?
>
> Thanks
> Mark
|
|
|
| Re: Default Package [message #1211 is a reply to message #1184] |
Mon, 16 April 2007 17:08 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi Andrey, yes just the end-user perspective. The concept seems fine in the API.
Andrey Platov wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> Short question: do you wish to avoid default package at API level or
> just from end-user experience point of view? My quick and dirty oppinion
> that it would be easy to remove default package visually, but it is
> reasonable to have it in code for logic unification... Guys, please
> share your thoughts and/or correct me.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Andrey
>
> Mark Howe wrote:
>> With Ruby (I assume it's there for the other languages too) there ia
>> always a default package, which just adds an unnecessary level of
>> indirection. I'd prefer that it wasn't there, any other opinions?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Mark
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02881 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
