On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 05:30:30AM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: > st 17. 3. 2021 v 4:52 odesÃlatel Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> > > > I am wondering whether it would be better to allow multiple aliases > > though, and if it would bring more readability to the routines written > > if these are treated equal to the top-most namespace which is the > > routine name now, meaning that we would maintain not one, but N top > > namespace labels that could be used as aliases of the root one. > > > > I do not have a strong opinion, but I am inclined to disallow this. I am > afraid so code can be less readable. > > There is a precedent - SQL doesn't allow you to use table names as > qualifiers when you have an alias.
+1 > > But it is a very important question. The selected behavior strongly impacts > an implementation. > > What is the more common opinion about it? 1. Should we allow the original > top label or not? 2. Should we allow to define more top labels? I also think that there should be a single usable top label, otherwise it will lead to confusing code and it can be a source of bug.
