On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Robert Dewar <de...@adacore.com> wrote: > 徐持恒 wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Robert Dewar <de...@adacore.com> wrote: >> >>> It's a pity to exclude namespaces, the advantage of breaking the >>> single-big-namespace model are evident. >> >> Yes, the advantage of namespace is obvious. >> >> But, I think namespace is just a syntax sugar. You can name your >> variables, functions, classes properly to "avoid" it. > > All of OO is just syntactic sugar :-) > You can mimic anything in C, the point is that it obscures the > code, this kind of naming obscures the code, so it is better > avoided.
Indeed. Like the funny names you start to invent when you have wrappers that allow different kind of argument types for a common worker. Like building a points-to constraint in tree-ssa-structalias.c, those have two args which technically can be either of type int, of type varinfo_t or of type struct constraint_expr ... The most convenient variant would be auto-conversion to struct constraint_expr, but even an explicit constructor call would be ok. Or simply use function overloading for a sub-set of all argument type combinations. The same applies to functions operating on HWI vs. double-int vs. tree integer constants vs. RTL integer constants. Where at that point the question is whether we want to allow operator overloading. (No would be my answer) Richard.
