<html><body>
<p><tt>xotcl-bounces@alice.wu-wien.ac.at wrote on 03/19/2006 06:53:50 AM:<br>
<br>
> <br>
> One general observation about our discussion: it is often not clear, <br>
> what "namespace"<br>
> refers to, a "tcl namespace" or some kind of an abstract namespace. </tt><br>
<br>
<tt>I've been guilty of this. I wondered what would happen if XOTcl's objects used their own concept/implementation of an abstract namespace (or scope) instead of using Tcl namespaces.</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>(The answer seems to be that it would be a lot of work and it would break XOTcl...)</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>That said, I think it would be good if, in general, non-XOTcl accesses to an XOTcl object's attributes didn't assume the way Tcl's namespaces are used, but instead there were object methods that would construct appropriately qualified names for an instance's attributes. </tt><br>
<tt><br>
> i for my part would be happy to have a lower level <br>
> interface to these<br>
> functionalities, having e.g. the management for cmds different from the <br>
> management<br>
> of the vars, but this would be a deeper change in the tcl-internals, <br>
> requireing many<br>
> interface changes.<br>
</tt><br>
<tt>Does Tip #257 provide a opening for having that discussion with the Tcl Core Team? If there's willingness to add OO support to Tcl, does that also imply a willingness to at least consider extending the C API to better support it as well?<br>
</tt><br>
<tt> Scott</tt></body></html>