Phobos packages a bit confusing

[Pelle Månsson]

retard wrote:
> Wed, 02 Dec 2009 08:38:29 +0100, Pelle Månsson wrote:
> 
>> retard wrote:
>>> Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:58:25 -0500, bearophile wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rainer Deyke:
>>>>> "open" by itself is ambiguous.  What are you opening?  A window?  A
>>>>> network port?  I think the word "file" needs to be in there somewhere
>>>>> to disambiguate.
>>>> When you program in Python you remember that open is a built-in
>>>> function to open files :-) When you want to open other things you
>>>> import other names from some module. So this ambiguity usually doesn't
>>>> introduce bugs. It' a well known convention. Few well chosen
>>>> conventions (sensible defaults) save you from a lot of useless coding.
>>> These default values are sometimes very annoying. For instance almost
>>> in every game you have a game object hierarchy and the super class of
>>> game objects usually conflicts with built-in 'Object'. If I write an
>>> adventure game and some event opens a dungeon door, open() suddenly
>>> deals with files. Also IIRC Python has built-in print() command. What
>>> if I want to redefine this to mean printing to a graphical quake like
>>> game console.
>>>
>>> Namespaces in general seem rather useful. I hate the php like 'there's
>>> a flat global scope and everything is a free function approach'. It's
>>> annoying me each time I use phobos.
>> door.open() ? In python, you can just override what open does if you
>> need open(door).
> 
> In internal class methods the door.open can be written as this.open() or 
> just open(). In that case you need to worry about other symbols, if they 
> are globally available built-ins.
Not in python you can't. Also, in D, this wouldn't be a problem, since 
if it is ambiguous, the compiler will tell you so.