On 8/1/2018 7:09 PM, Rubn wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 August 2018 at 23:04:01 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
An example of silent hijacking:
extern (C++, "ab") void foo(long); // original code
... lots of code ...
extern (C++, "cd") void foo(int); // added later by intern, should have been
// placed in another module
... a thousand lines later ...
foo(0); // OOPS! now calling cd.foo() rather than ab.foo(), D sux
You might say "nobody would ever write code like that." But that's like the C
folks saying real C programmers won't write:
You can do that today, just remove the "extern(C++, ...)" part and you have the
same issue. Why should C++ with namespaces be safer than just regular D ? I
don't understand, if it is such a huge gigantic problem why didn't you do
anything to solve this problem in regards to D then ?
The difference is those names are supposedly in different namespaces, given that
the code is converted from C++:
namespace ab { void foo(long); }
... lots of code ...
namespace cd { void foo(int); }
where the foo()'s do not conflict with each other, and a user would reasonably
expect that same behavior when translated to D.
If you *want* them in the same scope in D, you can do that with alias.
