• From: Rick Yorgason <rick@f...>
• To: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
• Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 17:53:18 -0400

Michael Kay wrote:
> I agree, it's much easier to say what's wrong with the current design than
> to propose something better. Though I don't think it would be hard to design
> something better if backwards compatibility were not a constraint.

I'm still not convinced we need to forfeit backwards compatibility to 
improve namespaces :)

http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/201004/msg00003.html

(Although, since I started lurking, I've realized that in addition to 
what I wrote in my proposal, it should also allow local names, the same 
way you can use "using std::cout" in C++.)

-Rick-

• References:
  • To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: David <dlee@c...>
  • Re: To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: Kendall Shaw <kshaw@k...>
  • Re: To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w...>
  • Re: To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...>
  • RE: To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • Re: To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: Max Toro <maxtoroq@g...>
  • RE: To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>