Specifying C++ symbols in C++ namespaces

[Mason McGill]

On Saturday, 5 April 2014 at 15:24:32 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> This is very practical thing. By introducing special constructs 
> to support some foreign language you open the can of worms. 
> Where does one stop? Should we also expect adding some new 
> idioms for better JNI support? Or Python? I can't see any 
> reason why C++ has to be any special and you can't nicely 
> support them all. We don't even truly do this for C and this 
> the only real ABI standard.

Another way to put this is that D is its own language, not a C++ 
extension.  IMO, an FFI should make interoperability possible via 
ABI matching, but it should not compromise the language (by 
making its scoping rules more complicated, introducing redundant 
constructs, or introducing a new token ("::") that could be used 
for another feature).