<html><body>
<p><tt>xotcl-bounces@alice.wu-wien.ac.at wrote on 03/20/2006 02:26:26 PM:<br>
<br>
> <br>
> On 20 Mar 2006, at 18:41, Scott Gargash wrote:<br>
> <br>
> > xotcl-bounces@alice.wu-wien.ac.at wrote on 03/20/2006 07:21:27 AM:<br>
> ><br>
> > There's some semantic relationship between the two accessors, so it <br>
> > would be nice to have some overlap in their names. How about "my <br>
> > varname" and "my methodname"?<br>
> How about, to make it totally obvious, "my varNamespace" and "my <br>
> methodNamespace"? Readability and clarity is generally more important <br>
> in programming than cutting a few keystrokes off and at least that <br>
> would be easy for anyone reading the code to decipher.<br>
</tt><br>
<tt>I agree with you about clarity vs. typing, but I'm still reluctant to entrench namespace. The fact that it's in a namespace is implementation, and part of the utility of this is to encapsulate that implementation. What's really happening is you're getting a valid external reference to a variable or method.</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>Hmm... "my &var" and "my &method"? Or is it too C++? "my varref" and "my methodref"?</tt><br>
<br>
<tt> Scott</tt></body></html>