On Friday, 2 May 2014 at 00:22:14 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
2. Creating a new name lookup mechanism is the kind of idea
that sound good but ends up horribly backfiring. There is all
kind of implications and it affect every single identifier
resolution. You don't want to mess with that (especially since
it is already quite badly defined in the first place).
What implications?
The implications with this DIP is that all library authors will
have to follow a convention of having all C++ dependencies in a
module named "cpp" in order to have a "fake" way of specifying
fully qualified C++ names.
Then lobby for coercing C++ types that have different paths.
This is not elegant. It is a hack.
