🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5143@lupine.NCD.COM> rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) writes:
>The problem is *not* one of establishing new "modules" or new "namespaces"
>(which class declarations can do quite well, thank you).  No.  The problem
>is that if you do this, it becomes quite cumbersome to *reference* the
>things whose declarations you have now nested within class declarations.
>Specifically, it is quite irritating to have to write out the extra
>CLASSNAME:: qualification all over the place.

Wouldn't this be a case were multiple inheritance could be used?

	struct Modulename {
		static ....;
		static ....;
	};

	class Foo : private Modulename {
		....
	};

I think it would solve the problem of "getting into" the module for code
packaged in classes.  Name conflicts only arise when an ambiguous name
is _used_, if I remember correctly, and can be solved with explicit
qualification.

Another property I like in Modula-2 is to be able to selectively
import names from a module, i.e.,

	IMPORT fission FROM Atomic;

I do not see how this very useful feature could be provided with the
class-as-module-and-no-new-keywords-please approach.

		-- Dag Bruck