[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: flat namespaces redux
From: |
Albert Chin |
Subject: |
Re: flat namespaces redux |
Date: |
Tue, 4 Feb 2003 22:02:11 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4i |
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 09:56:47PM -0600, Robert Boehne wrote:
> [snip snip]
>
> For this feature to really be useful a library would have to be
> a) Initially developed on OS/X
> b) dependent on two level namespace
> c) not really useful on any other plaform (no reason to
> fix for a flat namespace)
> I don't think there are too many libraries that would fit this
> criteria, but please, correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> In short, I'm not dead set against the idea, I just don't see the point.
I have no clue when it comes to OSX. However, the only reason I
support this is the impression I get that two-level namespaces are
good for OSX. Is this true? Does Apple *recommend* flat or two-level
namespaces?
--
albert chin (address@hidden)
- flat namespaces redux, Benjamin Reed, 2003/02/02
- Re: flat namespaces redux, Benjamin Reed, 2003/02/02
- Re: flat namespaces redux, Peter O'Gorman, 2003/02/03
- Re: flat namespaces redux, Benjamin Reed, 2003/02/03
- Re: flat namespaces redux, Peter O'Gorman, 2003/02/03
- Re: flat namespaces redux, Albert Chin, 2003/02/03
- Re: flat namespaces redux, Robert Boehne, 2003/02/04
- Re: flat namespaces redux, Yves de Champlain, 2003/02/04
- Re: flat namespaces redux, Albert Chin, 2003/02/04
- Re: flat namespaces redux, Robert Boehne, 2003/02/04
- Re: flat namespaces redux,
Albert Chin <=
- Re: flat namespaces redux, Robert Boehne, 2003/02/04
- Re: flat namespaces redux, Benjamin Reed, 2003/02/06