On Thursday, 2 August 2018 at 08:31:28 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/1/2018 10:06 PM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
I guess that would be acceptable if there is a real benefit,
but I have
not seen a single argument for the current behavior in this
thread.
Please read my postings in this thread, then.
I know you have been very patient with explaining this, but I've
been trying to read all threads on this topic and I'm still not
sure, can you please acknowledge if I understood you correctly or
not?
Let's use a simple pseudo example? Let's assume we have two
different 'any' implementations...
The current extern(c++) design allows us to bind to both of them
in a single file.
cpp_bindings.d
extern(c++, std) ...any-definition...
extern(c++, boost) ...any-definition...
Personally I would never *bind* to two different namespaces in a
single file, are there any other additional benefits to the
current design which I'm overlooking?
With a non-scoped extern(c++) we could simply use two files.
cppstd/any.d
extern(c++, std) ...any-definition...
boost/any.d
extern(c++, boost) ...any-definition...
My conclusion is that _if_ I understood you correctly, it must
mean that in the examples which you have in mind, it is common to
*bind* to two namespaces in the same file? Could you give a
real-world examples of two namespaces which you would like to mix
like that in the same *bindings* file? Is it for instance 'std'
and 'std::experimental'?
