Re: Why =?UTF-8?B?Q2Fu4oCZdCBZb3UgSW1wb3J0IFBhY2thZ2VzPw==?=
Arne Vajh??j wrote:
Lew wrote:
According to the Java tutorial at
http://download.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/concepts/package.html
"A package is a namespace that organizes a set of related classes and
interfaces."
So grouping related types is an explicit purpose of the namespaces.
The JLS, Chapter 7, "Packages", states, "Each package has its own set of
names for types, which helps to prevent name conflicts."
So prevention of name conflicts is, according to the JLS, a primary
purpose of packages.
I don't see the word "primary" in the quoted material.
The purpose is mentioned in the second sentence on the very topic, right at
the beginning of Chapter 7, of the normative document on the matter. That's
evidence of primacy.
You are correct that they do not use the word "primary". But you are being
disingenuous because you know perfectly well that that is neither necessary
nor sufficient to establish primacy. Inclusion in the JLS at all indicates
that the purpose is primary; inclusion at the very beginning of discussion of
the topic is strong evidence.
If you demand 100% proof rather than a preponderance of evidence, then you
win. It's ridiculous to think I could provide such. To achieve agreement you
and I will now need to resolve our different definitions of primacy of
purpose, evidence thereof, and sufficiency of proof. I prefer to stipulate
your definitions and concede the point.
I back off to the weaker claim; inclusion in the JLS signifies that prevention
of name conflicts is a sanctioned purpose of packages.
This still chides those who derided that purpose.
I am sure that you with a little search can find other points
of package usage in the JLS.
Also primary uses.
And then you can go outside of the JLS. Like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package_%28UML%29
As a meta-comment, let me commend you for setting an excellent example both
for rigorous thinking and use of research tools.
--
Lew
Honi soit qui mal y pense.