SIP-68: Reference-able Package Objects #100
Conversation
kyouko-taiga
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Overall I am in favor. It clearly improves on the status quo that we can refer to a package object in the natural way, without using the .package encoding.
My only concern is that accepting this proposal would effectively bury the idea of dropping package objects. But on reflection I don't think we will be able to drop package objects anyway for the reasons that were stated here.
|
|
||
| ## Limitations | ||
|
|
||
| * `a.b` only expands to `a.b.package` when used "standalone", i.e. not when part of a |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think this limitation is necessary and it would be hard to implement. I think we can simply say that in selection path a.b.c, a.b means the full package, not just the package object. But it's OK to have operators. By the time we check valid package object use, we have already expanded out all these operators to selections.
No description provided.