Chris Uppal wrote:


> The relevance is that since "my" classnames are hidden, and there is only the
> one "global" identifier, all the actual classnames can be (and are) long and
> descriptive without impacting clients of my code (if there were any).

Ok. What I'm getting at is that there should be
one "global" identifier *per programmer or project*.

That would reduce the possibility of name conflicts
even further. And perhaps this was your intention too.

Regards
-Panu Viljamaa


That in
> itself makes it highly unlikely that I/they will experience clashes. Also the
> fact that all (just about) references to classnames from inside the module are
> centralised in the 'Music' object means that changing them is extra specially
> easy -- should the need ever arise.
>
> There is, of course, no way that I can write *my* code such that it reduces the
> possibility of name clashes between two separate third parties.
>
> Well, not unless I go ahead and implement my "non-intrusive namespaces"
> suggestion from elsewhere in this thread -- I'm getting increasingly tempted to
> have a pop at it, it looks quite easy to do a bare-bones (little/no tools
> support, global identifiers only, no selector namespaces) implementation.
>
> -- chris
>
>
>