Outside perspective here and possibly stupid question. Is there any way we could have our cake and eat it too? One of the thinks I like is that it tends to be much more readable than C++, more code than necessary hurts readability of that code. Can the compiler warn when a function is called that is shadowed by another function in a different namespace. This to me seems like the most sane solution, what am I missing?
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018, 14:53 Manu via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On Sun, 5 Aug 2018 at 16:30, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d > <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > > > > On 8/4/2018 12:45 AM, Manu wrote: > > > [...] > > I get it, Manu, you don't find my arguments compelling. You've put these > forth > > before, and I could repeat myself rebutting each. I expect we're at a > dead end > > with that. > > So, what you're saying is "I hear you, and I will never change it > because I subjectively prefer it the way it is in spite of every users > experience". > Will you commit to that position officially, so we can refer back to > it in future? > > Just support the string namespace? It won't hurt you, our code will be > better, and you'll make us all that actually link to C++ so much > happier for it. > > If we produce a DIP to fix this, will you reject it in principle? >