On 5/2/2014 12:34 AM, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad" <ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com>" wrote:
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.

Not at all, any more than you have to do that for C names.


This is not elegant. It is a hack.

C++ is not elegant, and interfacing to it will necessarily pick up some of that.

Reply via email to