On 20 January 2016 at 10:49, deadalnix via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, 19 January 2016 at 20:29:42 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: >> >> While I am not in the mood for mudslinging or making a heated discussion >> out of this, I have to agree with Daniel and Manu here. If I remember >> correctly, you never really provided any justification (including during the >> original discussion back when the feature was introduced) as to why just >> using the normal means of name resolution and disambiguation in D – the >> module system – is not good enough for this. >> >> It's fine if you just say "I had a hunch that the added complexity would >> be worth it by making some situations more convenient, even though I can't >> provide a concrete example". Of course that might not be particularly >> persuasive, but it's your call in the end. But if you keep dodging the >> question, this discussion will never come to an end. >> >> — David > > > Isn't the fact that this is what they do in C++ good enough ? I mean, if it > wasn't a desirable feature, the C++ code writer would probably not have used > it.
The C++ namespace semantic doesn't have a proper analogy in D, and the D code is already organised into modules anyway making mirroring of the C++ semantic irrelevant. We don't mirror C/C++ semantics in other facets of the bindings, we just make it link. There's no reason to deviate from that pattern here. Nobody seems to want to address the problem points I raise in my last email though. If it was benign, I wouldn't care, but it causes way more harm than good.
