extern(C++, ns)

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 01/11/2016 11:29 PM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 12 January 2016 at 13:17, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
> <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>> On 01/11/2016 10:00 PM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>>
>>> Yeah, I'll get to it as I can. It's just a lot of fiddling and I've
>>> already spent all my time on this.
>>
>>
>> Thanks, Manu. This is awesome stuff. Code that should work but doesn't is
>> the best way to press things forward. -- Andrei
>
> It's a painful proposition though. Can you see the pointless-ness of
> this feature and the effort being asked?
> It is against my interest to spend time (that I don't have) to make
> this feature work, when I am 100% convinced it is a massive
> anti-feature and I just want to see it ejected into space. It creates
> nothing but edges and offers nothing. Not a single advantage that
> anyone has yet been able present.
> The solution is simple, and solves every related issue instantly.
> There's no point wasting time identifying and fixing bugs in an
> implementation that shouldn't exist in the first place. This never
> should have happened, we can correct it easily, no effort from anyone
> is required, and we can all get on with something else.
>
> Do you also feel somehow emotionally attached to this? Give me a
> thread of logic to grasp on to; there is no way I can imagine to
> objectively balance the existence of this feature against the
> problems. We already see here demonstrated evidence of someone other
> than me going out of their way to awkwardly eliminate the namespace
> from existence. It should at least be opt-in by default.

 From where I stand I see the following great ways to push things forward:

1. This code { ... } ought to compile with { these semantics } but does not.

> Anyway, I'm out, I'll be back when I find time for another round at this code.

Thanks!


Andrei