> > Just to mention, name mangling in C++, IIRC, is not for the code writer > consumption. It is for the mapping of the code to the symbol tables > of the C compilers and linkers below. >
I think we are pushing the whole OO analogy for Ant a little too hard. Ant build files are not class definitions, nor are they interface definitions, an approach which would be almost useless in a single global namespace. > All the resolution of the semantics of the language is done > before name mangling This is not strictly true. In C++ you decide (by using extern "C") whether to place a symbol in the global namespace or its own (by name mangling). The programmer needs to be aware of this. C++ also introduced the namespace concept due to the likelihood of Class name collisions, since prior to that Class names occupied a single global namespace. > takes place. Also notice that in C++ you have "virtual" and "non-virtual" > methods which have completely different resolution rules (Java > only has virtual). > It seems to me part of the issue is that we do not distinguish > between this > different behaviors but we still want them to have both. > So, what is your proposal? How does it address my usecase? I believe a non-prefixed import addresses your usecase. Conor --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
