kudling@kde.org schreibt:

> 
> > According to a discussion I had with Lenny a "Morph" is taken from the
> > Smalltalk/Squeak class library 
> 
> It's inspired by, it has nothing to do with it.

Sorry, my I sent the post before checking. The above was meant as "the name
was taken from". Nothing implied about actual code ;)

> 
> (http://www.squeak.org). The name was taken
> > because Ruby has not good name space support, and the name "Object" was
> > already taken, and to general...
> 
> That's not true. ruby has good name space support.  
> "Object" is the mother class of all classes. Of course you _could_
> probably use an own class "Object" within a name space. It's in the same
> way a good idea to call an own class QObject in a Qt/KDE project. You
> are free to go on with such bright ideas.

If Ruby has good namespece support, why didn't you use it?
I think a class name like "OPAL::Object" would be more easily uderstood
than "Morph"...

This Q* is a "internal namespace" issue, so I agree that it would not be a
good idea.
Because of C++ has no real root object, naming a class "Object" would be
even possible.
> 
> Bye
> Lenny
> _______________________________________________
> koffice-devel mailing list
> koffice-devel@mail.kde.org
> http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel



_______________________________________________
koffice-devel mailing list
koffice-devel@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel