On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 at 22:15, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 8/1/2018 12:01 PM, Manu wrote: > > You've never justified the design > > complexity and the baggage it carries. > Don't confuse you not agreeing with it with I never justified it. > > And please don't confuse me not listening to you with me not agreeing with > you. > > It *is* possible for reasonable people to disagree, especially when any > solution > will involve many tradeoffs and compromises.
We have demonstrated consistent ongoing issues and frustration for 6 years. Your counter-argument is hypothetical at best, and has never demonstrated an advantage. Can you agree on that? I don't think that's a subjective quantity where reasonable people may disagree. If the namespace is useful in a minor subset of cases in the way you argue, then it should be a secondary feature which can be deployed independently as appropriate. It should not be conflated into a basic mangling request which we can't opt-out of. We are yet to observe a case where it was useful, and we have to do ongoing work to try and un-do the effect on our code. I also want to stress, I'm not trying to change the existing code. I'm not for a breaking change. I think implementing the string alternative is the only robust way forward, because that also solves the additional problem of being able to name C++ namespaces that are invalid D keywords, which has bitten me in at least 2 particularly noteworthy occasions. Your hypothetical scenario may continue to be served if you like.
