I've found an article on Ruby which criticizes Ruby's lack of
package & namespace support. (Sorry I forgot the URL)
As you know, every modern language has namespace facility.
Even XML does have one to avoid name conflicts. Contrarily,
Ruby does not have explicit namespace facility. Though module
can provide with namespace facility it is not mandatory and
is not being used even in standard library.
So, I'd like to ask two questions:
1) Don't you think Ruby need a package/namespace concepts?
2) How would you solve the following problem:
[Start of a.rb]
# I want to declare class Struct because I love that name so much.
# The name Struct perfectly describes my domain problem as well.
class Struct
end
Foo = Struct.new :bar # I'd like to use Struct in standard library.
[end of a.rb]
As you know, every modern language has namespace facility.
Even XML does have one to avoid name conflicts. Contrarily,
Ruby does not have explicit namespace facility. Though module
can provide with namespace facility it is not mandatory and
is not being used even in standard library.
So, I'd like to ask two questions:
1) Don't you think Ruby need a package/namespace concepts?
It does, though, as you yourself point out. The fact that it isn't mandatory
isn't a problem.
2) How would you solve the following problem:
[Start of a.rb]
# I want to declare class Struct because I love that name so much.
# The name Struct perfectly describes my domain problem as well.
class Struct
end
Foo = Struct.new :bar # I'd like to use Struct in standard library.
[end of a.rb]
Simple. If you want to use Struct out of the standard library, then you have
to put your Struct in a different space.
module MyStuff
class Struct
# Struct stuff be found here....
end
end
my_struct = MyStuff::Struct.new
Kirk Haines
···
On Thursday 01 June 2006 3:52 pm, Minkoo Seo wrote:
Actually, the second question was my effort to think of some nice
example which mandates namespace concept in Ruby.
But, you actually solved my contrived example. And I'm wondering
if there is any real problem that needs namespace.
Sincerely,
Minkoo Seo
···
On 6/2/06, Kirk Haines <khaines@enigo.com> wrote:
On Thursday 01 June 2006 3:52 pm, Minkoo Seo wrote:
> As you know, every modern language has namespace facility.
> Even XML does have one to avoid name conflicts. Contrarily,
> Ruby does not have explicit namespace facility. Though module
> can provide with namespace facility it is not mandatory and
> is not being used even in standard library.
>
> So, I'd like to ask two questions:
>
> 1) Don't you think Ruby need a package/namespace concepts?
It does, though, as you yourself point out. The fact that it isn't
mandatory
isn't a problem.
> 2) How would you solve the following problem:
>
> [Start of a.rb]
> # I want to declare class Struct because I love that name so much.
> # The name Struct perfectly describes my domain problem as well.
> class Struct
> end
>
> Foo = Struct.new :bar # I'd like to use Struct in standard library.
> [end of a.rb]
Simple. If you want to use Struct out of the standard library, then you
have
to put your Struct in a different space.
module MyStuff
class Struct
# Struct stuff be found here....
end
I have Point class provided by XYZ company.
I also have Point class provided by ABC company.
Now, I have to creates an instance of XYZ.Point from an
instance of ABC.Point. How can I solve this problem?
I have to mention ABC.Point and XYZ.Point in the same file.
Sincerely,
Minkoo Seo
···
On 6/2/06, Minkoo Seo <minkoo.seo@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you Kirk.
Actually, the second question was my effort to think of some nice
example which mandates namespace concept in Ruby.
But, you actually solved my contrived example. And I'm wondering
if there is any real problem that needs namespace.
Sincerely,
Minkoo Seo
On 6/2/06, Kirk Haines <khaines@enigo.com> wrote:
>
> On Thursday 01 June 2006 3:52 pm, Minkoo Seo wrote:
>
> > As you know, every modern language has namespace facility.
> > Even XML does have one to avoid name conflicts. Contrarily,
> > Ruby does not have explicit namespace facility. Though module
> > can provide with namespace facility it is not mandatory and
> > is not being used even in standard library.
> >
> > So, I'd like to ask two questions:
> >
> > 1) Don't you think Ruby need a package/namespace concepts?
>
> It does, though, as you yourself point out. The fact that it isn't
> mandatory
> isn't a problem.
>
> > 2) How would you solve the following problem:
> >
> > [Start of a.rb]
> > # I want to declare class Struct because I love that name so much.
> > # The name Struct perfectly describes my domain problem as well.
> > class Struct
> > end
> >
> > Foo = Struct.new :bar # I'd like to use Struct in standard library.
> > [end of a.rb]
>
> Simple. If you want to use Struct out of the standard library, then you
> have
> to put your Struct in a different space.
>
> module MyStuff
> class Struct
> # Struct stuff be found here....
> end
>
> my_struct = MyStuff::Struct.new
>
> Kirk Haines
>
Sure. When I work on my web framework, I am pretty carefule to keep the whole
thing within the ::Iowa namespace. I do this so that I avoid unexpected
conflicts/interactions with other code.
For instance, there are several useful extensions to String that I wanted to
use, but I didn't want to risk a bad interaction between those extensions and
other code. So, there's Iowa::String available for when I need those
extensions. The various cache implementations, TMail wrapper, utility
methods, constants, and other generally useful code is all inside of the Iowa
namespace. In an application running within the framework, the framework
takes pains to load application code into separate namespaces, as well. All
of this makes sure that if someone writes or downloads a piece of code to use
in an application, that it won't butt heads with the Iowa code and cause
difficult to resolve problems.
Ruby's namespaces, perhaps, are not perfect, but they are simple and pretty
good and work well when trying to keep my code from stepping on your code.
It's always been a bit of a puzzle to me why, historically, there hasn't been
more extensive use of them in libraries that people release. That single
thing was the strangest single thing that I found when I came to Ruby from
the Perl world.
Kirk Haines
···
On Thursday 01 June 2006 4:04 pm, Minkoo Seo wrote:
Thank you Kirk.
Actually, the second question was my effort to think of some nice
example which mandates namespace concept in Ruby.
But, you actually solved my contrived example. And I'm wondering
if there is any real problem that needs namespace.
I have Point class provided by XYZ company.
I also have Point class provided by ABC company.
Now, I have to creates an instance of XYZ.Point from an
instance of ABC.Point. How can I solve this problem?
I have to mention ABC.Point and XYZ.Point in the same file.
I think the OR was suggesting that company ABC and company XYZ neglected to wrap their classes in a containing module/namespace so you have two top level classes named Point. I think at that point you suggested politely to both ABC and XYZ that they should distribute their code within a module.
You still have the problems of two authors picking the same top level module name.
Gary Wright
···
On Jun 1, 2006, at 6:20 PM, Matthew Smillie wrote:
On Jun 1, 2006, at 23:08, Minkoo Seo wrote:
Okay, here's another example.
I have Point class provided by XYZ company.
I also have Point class provided by ABC company.
Now, I have to creates an instance of XYZ.Point from an
instance of ABC.Point. How can I solve this problem?
I have to mention ABC.Point and XYZ.Point in the same file.
>
>
>> Okay, here's another example.
>>
>> I have Point class provided by XYZ company.
>> I also have Point class provided by ABC company.
>>
>> Now, I have to creates an instance of XYZ.Point from an
>> instance of ABC.Point. How can I solve this problem?
>> I have to mention ABC.Point and XYZ.Point in the same file.
>
> abc_point = ABC::Point.new
> xyz_point = XYZ::Point.new
I think the OR was suggesting that company ABC and company XYZ
neglected to wrap their classes in a containing module/namespace so
you have two top level classes named Point. I think at that point
you suggested politely to both ABC and XYZ that they should
distribute their code within a module.
You still have the problems of two authors picking the same top level
module name.
There were a discussion somewhere in ruby-talk about the syntax like:
module ABC
end
ABC::load('abc-point') #here we have all code from abc-point.rb inside
module ABC
Or something like this.
Moreover, there is already brilliant Script[1] library, which allows to do
such kind of things right now.
Does anybody know exact conclusion of the discussion
on ABC::load('abc-point') syntax?
My memory is blurred, and if I remember correctly,
the suggestion was rejected because ABC::load syntax
does not anything but
require 'abc-point'
module ABC
include abc-point
end
and such an implementation is already there and trivial.
And I am curious why namespace capability is not part of
Ruby language. Is there any standardized solution for
handling two 'Point' classes from two different company?
Sincerely,
Minkoo Seo
···
On 6/2/06, Victor Shepelev <vshepelev@imho.com.ua> wrote:
From: gwtmp01@mac.com [mailto:gwtmp01@mac.com]
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 1:53 AM
> On Jun 1, 2006, at 6:20 PM, Matthew Smillie wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jun 1, 2006, at 23:08, Minkoo Seo wrote:
> >
> >> Okay, here's another example.
> >>
> >> I have Point class provided by XYZ company.
> >> I also have Point class provided by ABC company.
> >>
> >> Now, I have to creates an instance of XYZ.Point from an
> >> instance of ABC.Point. How can I solve this problem?
> >> I have to mention ABC.Point and XYZ.Point in the same file.
> >
> > abc_point = ABC::Point.new
> > xyz_point = XYZ::Point.new
>
> I think the OR was suggesting that company ABC and company XYZ
> neglected to wrap their classes in a containing module/namespace so
> you have two top level classes named Point. I think at that point
> you suggested politely to both ABC and XYZ that they should
> distribute their code within a module.
>
> You still have the problems of two authors picking the same top level
> module name.
There were a discussion somewhere in ruby-talk about the syntax like:
module ABC
end
ABC::load('abc-point') #here we have all code from abc-point.rb inside
module ABC
Or something like this.
Moreover, there is already brilliant Script[1] library, which allows to do
such kind of things right now.
Yes. Yell at them for not using namespaces in their own code.
I'll admit that I've not always used namespaces cleanly, and at times
I've also ended up "claiming" rather large swaths of namespace
(PDF::Writer anyone?), but I am *very* consistent about documenting
that behaviour and namespacing within that.
-austin
···
On 6/2/06, Minkoo Seo <minkoo.seo@gmail.com> wrote:
And I am curious why namespace capability is not part of
Ruby language. Is there any standardized solution for
handling two 'Point' classes from two different company?
I'm confused. In what language would these two companies putting their code outside of a namespace declaration _not_ be a problem then? As far as I can tell ruby provides as much namespace support as any other language, and no language (AFAIK)has a way to make two top-level Point classes work the right way if they aren't inside different namespaces.
···
On Jun 2, 2006, at 6:26 AM, Minkoo Seo wrote:
Thank you for the pointer and explanation.
Does anybody know exact conclusion of the discussion
on ABC::load('abc-point') syntax?
My memory is blurred, and if I remember correctly,
the suggestion was rejected because ABC::load syntax
does not anything but
require 'abc-point'
module ABC
include abc-point
end
and such an implementation is already there and trivial.
And I am curious why namespace capability is not part of
Ruby language. Is there any standardized solution for
handling two 'Point' classes from two different company?
Sincerely,
Minkoo Seo
On 6/2/06, Victor Shepelev <vshepelev@imho.com.ua> wrote:
From: gwtmp01@mac.com [mailto:gwtmp01@mac.com]
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 1:53 AM
> On Jun 1, 2006, at 6:20 PM, Matthew Smillie wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jun 1, 2006, at 23:08, Minkoo Seo wrote:
> >
> >> Okay, here's another example.
> >>
> >> I have Point class provided by XYZ company.
> >> I also have Point class provided by ABC company.
> >>
> >> Now, I have to creates an instance of XYZ.Point from an
> >> instance of ABC.Point. How can I solve this problem?
> >> I have to mention ABC.Point and XYZ.Point in the same file.
> >
> > abc_point = ABC::Point.new
> > xyz_point = XYZ::Point.new
>
> I think the OR was suggesting that company ABC and company XYZ
> neglected to wrap their classes in a containing module/namespace so
> you have two top level classes named Point. I think at that point
> you suggested politely to both ABC and XYZ that they should
> distribute their code within a module.
I'm confused. In what language would these two companies putting
their code outside of a namespace declaration _not_ be a problem
then? As far as I can tell ruby provides as much namespace support as
any other language,
You could do it in a language with "selector namespaces", I think. I believe it's been a feature discussed for Ruby 2.0, but I don't know what its status is.
Does anybody know exact conclusion of the discussion
on ABC::load('abc-point') syntax?
My memory is blurred, and if I remember correctly,
the suggestion was rejected because ABC::load syntax
does not anything but
require 'abc-point'
module ABC
include abc-point
end
and such an implementation is already there and trivial.
And I am curious why namespace capability is not part of
Ruby language. Is there any standardized solution for
handling two 'Point' classes from two different company?
Sincerely,
Minkoo Seo
From: gwtmp01@mac.com [mailto:gwtmp01@mac.com]
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 1:53 AM
>
> >
> >> Okay, here's another example.
> >>
> >> I have Point class provided by XYZ company.
> >> I also have Point class provided by ABC company.
> >>
> >> Now, I have to creates an instance of XYZ.Point from an
> >> instance of ABC.Point. How can I solve this problem?
> >> I have to mention ABC.Point and XYZ.Point in the same file.
> >
> > abc_point = ABC::Point.new
> > xyz_point = XYZ::Point.new
>
> I think the OR was suggesting that company ABC and company XYZ
> neglected to wrap their classes in a containing module/namespace so
> you have two top level classes named Point. I think at that point
> you suggested politely to both ABC and XYZ that they should
> distribute their code within a module.
I'm confused. In what language would these two companies putting their code outside of a namespace declaration _not_ be a problem then? As far as I can tell ruby provides as much namespace support as any other language, and no language (AFAIK)has a way to make two top-level Point classes work the right way if they aren't inside different namespaces.
Does it matter? There's potentially a way to solve it in Ruby that doesn't involve changing the offending code. What other languages do is hardly relevant. In a way, Ruby provides much better namespace support than other languages, because it's actually feasible to change the namespace of code after the fact.
···
On Jun 2, 2006, at 6:26 AM, Minkoo Seo wrote:
On 6/2/06, Victor Shepelev <vshepelev@imho.com.ua> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2006, at 6:20 PM, Matthew Smillie wrote:
> > On Jun 1, 2006, at 23:08, Minkoo Seo wrote:
I thought selector namespaces were going to be for methods? Anyway, I still don't see the "problem" with modules as namespaces. Asking how to solve the problem of people putting objects in the same namespace with the same identifier seems akin to trying to "solve" the problem of how to stop x / 0 from being an error.
···
On Jun 2, 2006, at 4:08 PM, MenTaLguY wrote:
I'm confused. In what language would these two companies putting
their code outside of a namespace declaration _not_ be a problem
then? As far as I can tell ruby provides as much namespace support as
any other language,
You could do it in a language with "selector namespaces", I think. I believe it's been a feature discussed for Ruby 2.0, but I don't know what its status is.