[RFC] Solid and use of namespaces

[David Faure]

On Sunday 21 May 2006 18:19, Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Sunday 21 May 2006 16:50, David Faure wrote:
> > > I mostly fail to see the need for namespaces, it feels like
> > > overdesign without any clear advantage, since C++ does not provide
> > > many features in the user of namespaces.
> > > And if the advantage is Power::Manager instead of PowerManager and
> > > Power::Battery::isFilled() instead of PowertypeBattery::isFilled(),
> > > well; its too similar to actually accept disadvantages in my
> > > experience.
> >
> > The difference is that in a .cpp file you can do
> > using namespace Power;
> > Manager(...); Battery::isFilled();
> > etc.
> > which avoids filling the file with "Power" everywhere.
> 
> Oh, sorry for not being clear; I am aware of that, indeed. In the part I 
> wrote above I meant to say that I'd rather have 'PowerManager' and  
> 'PowertypeBattery' in my sources then the ones you have.
> I firmly believe that using namespaces to such an extreme will hinder 
> readability of the sources.

In an example like the above, yes. But reading 1000 times "KIO" in the 
kio sources, or "KParts" in the kparts sources, wouldn't really improve
readability in any way.

-- 
David Faure, faure at kde.org, sponsored by Trolltech to work on KDE,
Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org), and KOffice (http://www.koffice.org).