Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 01:28:56 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
I ran the following experiment:
mkdir deleteme
cd deleteme
mkdir std
touch std/algorithm.d
echo 'import std.algorithm; void main(){int a, b;swap(a,b);}' >main.d
dmd main
The attempt to compile main fails with "undefined identifier swap",
which means that the module I defined in the current directory
successfully hijacked the one in the standard library.
The usual D spirit is that a symbol is searched exhaustively, and
attempts at hijacking are denounced. In the module cases, it turns out
that an entire module can successfully hijack another.
Walter and I are ambivalent about this. There has been no bug report
so it seems like people didn't have a problem with things working as
they are. But maybe they never hijacked, or maybe some did hijack.
Question: should we change this?
No. This is completely the opposite of hijacking. I would consider it
hijacking if I had a project with a blah/file.d and the standard library
added a blah/file.d that overrode *my* file.
-Steve
The opposite of hijacking would be if any duplicates found would be an
error.
Andrei
