Re: A prototype for a binding based approach to proper namespaces

[Andrea Corallo]

Daniel Colascione <address@hidden> writes:

>>> No, not in this case. This is something that might appear to be fine
>>> in isolated tests or in modules that don't get a lot of use, but the
>>> more people use this thing, the worse it gets, right? I don't see any
>>> reason to *prefer* this approach to the zero cost one. Let's not be
>>> slow for no benefit.
>>
>> If the alternative is the read time approach I think many people think
>> it has disadvantages.  Are proposing a third way?
>
>
> Which specific disadvantages?

I think there as been recently other discussions here on this, you can
look them up.  I'd say read-time side effects and symbol leakage.  This
is all coming from having different obarrays the reader is working on.

Anyway reasoning about I think is possible to have no additional
indirections in (byte-)compiled code with this system too.  If the
Lexspace is known at compile time and so is the final slot into the
binding to be used this should be used directly.  It shouldn't be hard
to implement.

  Andrea

-- 
address@hidden