Proposed Namespace Changes

[Pierre-Yves David]

On 12/18/2014 07:27 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
>
> Pierre-Yves David writes:
>
>> On 12/18/2014 05:10 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
>>> Sure, that's fine but doesn't solve the 'namesof' case. Or are you
>>> saying we shouldn't have the namesof method?
>>
>> It still make sense to have some method on the top level container.
>> singlenode is another good example.
>
> Righto. Unfortunately, I don't think this proposal (of creating a more
> object oriented approach) fixes the cycle dependency on repo :-(

But we need to take the repo in argument to respect repoview anyway, so 
it is fine.

-- 
Pierre-Yves David