On 4/28/14, 1:15 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
"Walter Bright" wrote in message news:ljjmi6$16nk$1...@digitalmars.com...
Ok, I saw that, and replied to it earlier this thread.
Yes, but you seemed to miss the point.
Having a pragma to just add mangling doesn't deal with problems like:
namespace N { int foo(); }
namespace M { int foo(); }
foo(); // how to specify which one gets called?
I.e. only addressing name mangling does not scale. Need actual scopes,
too.
We have MODULES to deal with conflicts. We do NOT need to add a new
type of scope to D just for C++ namespaces.
You deal with conflicts the SAME WAY you do with normal symbols - put
them in different modules.
This is more powerful, because it doesn't force you to match the
namespace layout in your D code.
I've missed that proposal, and couldn't find browsing through your
recent posts. Could you please send a link, thanks. -- Andrei
