Piers Cawley wrote:
>
> > This is a bit dangerous, since we can get into ambiguities again.
> > If I have A::B::C::Foo, A::B::C::Bar, X::Y::Z::Foo and X::Y::Z::Bar,
> > I'd like to use shorthands for A::B::C's Foo and X::Y::Z's Bar at the
> > same time.
>
> Well you can't. The patch that I pinched this RFC from is a lexically
> scoped affair, so if you want to use a different namespace somewhere
> else you are free to do so:
>
> use namespace 'A::B::C';
> my ::Foo = ::Foo->new;
> use namespace 'X::Y::Z';
> my ::Foo = ::Foo->new
>
> should work.
Yeah but - I am asking for more control.
Could we not support both:
using namespace 'A::B::C';
in which ::Foo refers to A::B::C::Foo, and no reference to X::Y::Z works
and
using A::B::C::Foo;
using X::Y::Z::Bar;
in which ::Foo is now an alias for A::B::C::Foo and ::Bar is an alias
for X::Y::Z::Bar. This would end the effect of a previous 'using
namespace' statement.
I've written this with a 'using' keyword, we can of course also use the
module syntax in your proposal...
Hildo
