On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 at 08:38:35 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 1/19/2016 11:51 PM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
You admit
This is where a debate about ideas leaves the rails. This is
not a court, nobody has alleged a crime. I want to bring it
back on the track.
I want to help you be successful with interfacing D with C++.
You have posted several bugs with the ns implementation. I have
fixed those bugs, and you agreed they were fixed.
You wrote there are remaining serious problems with ns. I have
no idea what they are. Please post code that illustrates what
serious problem(s) you are having.
Considering all the arguments both recently and when the feature
was first implemented, I find it unlikely that everyone will ever
agree to one solution.
Are there any strong arguments against making the scope
*optional*? The cost of implementation should be quite low, both
compared to the complexity of the feature itself and the
complexity of all the *different* workarounds people already use
to hide the symbols.
