Is there any good reason why C++ namespaces are "closed" in D?

[Danni Coy]

Outside perspective here and possibly stupid question. Is there any way we
could have our cake and eat it too? One of the thinks I like is that it
tends to be much more readable than C++, more code than necessary hurts
readability of  that code. Can the compiler warn when a function is called
that is shadowed by another function in a different namespace. This to me
seems like the most sane solution, what am I missing?

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018, 14:53 Manu via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 5 Aug 2018 at 16:30, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
> <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 8/4/2018 12:45 AM, Manu wrote:
> > > [...]
> > I get it, Manu, you don't find my arguments compelling. You've put these
> forth
> > before, and I could repeat myself rebutting each. I expect we're at a
> dead end
> > with that.
>
> So, what you're saying is "I hear you, and I will never change it
> because I subjectively prefer it the way it is in spite of every users
> experience".
> Will you commit to that position officially, so we can refer back to
> it in future?
>
> Just support the string namespace? It won't hurt you, our code will be
> better, and you'll make us all that actually link to C++ so much
> happier for it.
>
> If we produce a DIP to fix this, will you reject it in principle?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20180806/0547a13d/attachment.html>