Is there any good reason why C++ namespaces are "closed" in D?
Johannes Pfau
nospam at example.com
Thu Aug 2 05:06:41 UTC 2018
Am Wed, 01 Aug 2018 16:31:57 -0700 schrieb Walter Bright:
> On 7/31/2018 1:47 AM, Atila Neves wrote:
>> The only good way (I don't think the mixin template and struct
>> solutions count)
>> to link to any of that today would be to have one enormous D file with
>> _everything_ in it, including nested namespaces.
>
> Why doesn't it count? The user doesn't need to write that code, the
> translator does.
I remember a time when people here were joking about all the boilerplate
you have to write when using java and that it's only usable with an IDE.
Now we've got a C++ interfacing which requires lots of boilerplate and is
only usable with an external translater tool...
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. It's
great that we can workaround the scoping with lots of boilerplate, but
when is C++ namespaces introducing a scope in D actually useful? Can you
give an example where this scoping is necessary? So far I have not seen a
single person happily using that scoping feature.
--
Johannes
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list