🚀 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.
|
|How can this problem (i.e. the *real* problem) be solved?

C++ already has several "solutions" to these kinds of problems:

1) Within a member function "this->" is the default
2) Within a class inherited classnames are the default
3) Using references you can use shorthand names
....

Substituting "module" for "class" in the above list leads to many ideas.
Here's some examples:

// the following silly #defines are introduced just to help show what 
// I'm talking about:
#define MODULE class
#define USE :

MODULE XYZCorpClasses
{
public:
	static int intThing;	
	class Object { public: void doSomething(); };
	// ....
};

MODULE ABCCorpClasses
{
public:
	class Object { public: void doSomething(); };
	// ....
};

MODULE MyClasses USE public XYZCorpClasses
{
public:
	class Derived : public Object 
	{ public: void doSomething(); };

	static void main()
	{
		// let's try using some XYZ stuff by default:

		Object object; object.doSomething();
		Derived dirv; dirv.doSomething();

		// now let's use some non-default ABC stuff instead:

		ABCCorpClasses::Object abcOb; abcOb.doSomething();

		// or explicitly use XYZ stuff if we like:

		XYZCorpClasses::Object xyzOb; xyzOb.doSomething();
	}
};


void main() { MyClasses::main(); }