| | 39 | == A case for why name-spacing alone is a decent solution == |
| | 40 | |
| | 41 | * You can use a type synonym to abbreviate the namespace part (as |
| | 42 | shown above.) |
| | 43 | * If there's no ambiguity you don't need to use a namespace (e.g. you |
| | 44 | can use 'a' instead of 'Record.a'). |
| | 45 | * The namespace name is predictable (e.g. <Typename>.<fieldname>) |
| | 46 | while ad-hoc prefixes tend to use different conventions e.g. the whole |
| | 47 | record name (e.g. 'recordA') or some abbreviation thereof (e.g. |
| | 48 | 'rcrdA'.) |
| | 49 | |
| | 50 | The main argument for this approach is its simplicity; it's simple to |
| | 51 | understand for users and (hopefully) simple to implement. |
