Luke Palmer wrote:
So, we can have :: in names, but that doesn't represent any inherent
relationship between the module before the :: and the one after. I
think this is an important thing to keep.
However, will it be possible to, for example, do:
module Foo;
module Bar { ... }
And refer
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 07:50:05PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
: So, we can have :: in names, but that doesn't represent any inherent
: relationship between the module before the :: and the one after. I
: think this is an important thing to keep.
:
: However, will it be possible to, for example,
object on which the baz method was invoked.
This kind of behaviour is more useful for nested classes, I suspect, but
it should certainly be available for nested modules as well.
Damian
Damian Conway wrote:
Larry wrote:
This kind of behaviour is more useful for nested classes, I suspect, but
it should certainly be available for nested modules as well.
So, what's the difference between a module and a class, and
why would you want dynamic namespaces? Isn't that something
you'd
So, we can have :: in names, but that doesn't represent any inherent
relationship between the module before the :: and the one after. I
think this is an important thing to keep.
However, will it be possible to, for example, do:
module Foo;
module Bar { ... }
And refer to the inner
