On 21/01/2016 9:15 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/20/2016 8:38 AM, Marc Schütz wrote:
IMO his description was already quite clear, but here you are:
What's missing is why this is a *serious* problem. All you've got to do
is add a qualifier.
The *serious* problem is that the added scope does not appear to add
practical value, yet has a non-zero cost. And yes I've seen your
example with two same-named symbols in the same module, but I really
don't understand why *that* is a serious problem that the namespace
scope is worth introducing to solve.
And I am not personally arguing for D modules mapping to C++ namespaces
- the alternative feature I have in mind is extern(C++, "namespace")
affecting mangling and *nothing else*.
