Re: Namespaces again (was: RE: PATCH: Add jobdirs association to parameter module)

[Peter Stephenson <pws@pwstephenson.fsnet.co.uk>]

Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
> - What exactly would we gain by using different tables?

It's really an internal matter.  If you can give the same impression easily
without that's probably OK.

> - In which way would they remain `invalid'? Especially from a user's
>   point of view -- who should still be able to say `.a.b=c'.

I think Andrej was saying ${a.b} should be invalid, which I agree with
since otherwise it complicates things mightily --- i.e, if there are any
dots in a name, there must be one at the beginning.  Just allowing
`.' separators might be enough for testing, but it's too much of a hack for
normal use.  Unfortunately, catching all the relevant entry points to the
parameter code to test this sort of thing tends to be rather a nuisance.

It would be nice to get the full module name into the namespace, but
perhaps ${.parameter.options} is a bit long.

I think it's still early enough days with the parameter module to make this
change without too many people throwing themselves off millennial
landmarks.  We should decide if others need it.  mapfile is perhaps the
only candidate, but then ${.mapfile.what?}, or can we get away with
${.mapfile} ?

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@pwstephenson.fsnet.co.uk>