On Sat, 2 Oct 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Gavin,
>
> > I agree that packages give us something like classes in that we can define
> > related functions/procs into a single namespace. They provide other
> > features like package level variables and public/private functionality. I
> > think they major use is namespacing, however, and we can more or less have
> > that for free with schemas.
>
> Don't knock non-namespacing aspects. Now that exception handling inside
I don't think I was. My point is that since we have an analogous concept,
from a namespacing point of view, we don't need to do the work for 8.1. In
fact, based on a previous submission to get packages in (about 2 years ago
now) by someone working for Zembu (I think), I'd say that packages may be
a lot of work.
> So what am I saying? That we don't want to implement SPs in such a way that
> would *prevent* the implementation of packages, but at the same time don't
> want to make packages the focus of SPs, at least not yet.
If there are any areas of what Neil and I have discussed so far which you
think would hinder a package implementation, please let us know, since
neither of us have much recent experience with them.
Thanks,
Gavin
