On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 at 13:53:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
Very well said, thanks.
Based on everything Walter said in the previous thread, it
honestly seems to me to be primarily like he just can't give up
on the idea that D has to worry about modeling C++ namespaces.
That is the conclusion I came to as well.
What Walter did makes perfect sense if you assume that D needs
to care about namespaces when using the C++ symbol in D, but
the conclusion of the rest of us when looking at the problem
has been that D really doesn't need to care about the
namespaces beyond mangling, because D modules already solve the
problem.
I think this is the key insight, everything else follows from
this.
But regardless, I'm with you and Manu at this point in that I
don't understand why extern(C++, "Namespace") isn't a clearly
better (and simpler) solution overall. But maybe we'll get
lucky and after Walter has thought about it long enough, he'll
come around. Either way, per the current process, we would
clearly need a DIP even if Walter already agreed. So, the next
step is to write a DIP, and hopefully it can be written well
enough that it's appropriately convincing unlike everything
that has been argued thus far.
Indeed, It is a pity the DIP pipeline is so full.
Manu, what timeline do you ideally need this by? and do you have
an implementation? Putting it into LDC is probably going to be
the fastest given there are 3 high impact DIPs in the queue
already + however long takes to get this trough and then
implemented.
