On Tuesday, 12 January 2016 at 04:29:00 UTC, Manu wrote:
Can you see the pointless-ness of
this feature and the effort being asked?
It is against my interest to spend time (that I don't have) to
make
this feature work, when I am 100% convinced it is a massive
anti-feature and I just want to see it ejected into space. It
creates
nothing but edges and offers nothing. Not a single advantage
that
anyone has yet been able present.
The solution is simple, and solves every related issue
instantly.
There's no point wasting time identifying and fixing bugs in an
implementation that shouldn't exist in the first place. This
never
should have happened, we can correct it easily, no effort from
anyone
is required, and we can all get on with something else.
Do you also feel somehow emotionally attached to this? Give me
a thread of logic to grasp on to; there is no way I can imagine
to objectively balance the existence of this feature against
the problems. We already see here demonstrated evidence of
someone other than me going out of their way to awkwardly
eliminate the namespace from existence. It should at least be
opt-in by default.
Anyway, I'm out, I'll be back when I find time for another
round at this code.
For what it's worth, I'm completely flabbergasted by the fact it
somehow
introduces a "named scope". So, my understanding of the pros:
- It makes it easy to mirror the organization of your C++ code:
Maybe. You probably already have thought of the organization of
your
modules, which takes care of that job for you in D. This seems to
be
the one selling point. If there are others, please do elucidate.
Now, the cons:
- No opt-out.
There are workarounds, but that's not exactly a good argument
in favor.
- It can already be done with existing language features.
This is in my opinion a big one. Whenever other language
features are
suggested, this argument is used to shoot it down. Why not so
with this feature?
- Implementation problems.
Not exactly a heavy argument against a feature, but if there
are many
problems with it, it's a hint that the design may be flawed.
The arguments (that I see) seem to favor not introducing a new
symbol.
