extern(C++, ns) is wrong

[rikki cattermole]

On 05/09/2018 9:35 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 2:30:25 AM MDT Walter Bright via
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On 9/4/2018 10:16 PM, Manu wrote:
>>> I'm serious, you can have your cake, and potentially, I could have my
>>> cake too, and everybody would be happy... nobody would be sad.
>>
>> If it is the same, I provided solutions in those threads. The incomplete
>> example code did not make use of them.
>>
>> I don't know why you have "no option" left.
> 
> If I understand correctly, what it basically comes down to is that Manu
> finds all of the workarounds that you've suggested to be so annoying as to
> be intolerable. And after running into some of the same problems yet again,
> he felt the need to complain about it again and beg you to change your mind,
> since he feels that he has no idea how to convince you. I get the impression
> that he thinks that his proposed solution is so obviously better that he
> doesn't understand why you don't see that it's better, but I don't know.
> Either way, I think that we all know that it can be very difficult to
> convince you of something (though that's true of many of us around here). :)
> 
>>From what I understand of the situation, I'm inclined to agree with Manu's
> position on this topic, but I thought that it was clear from the previous
> discussion that if there were any chance of anything changing, we were going
> to need a DIP. Based on everything that's been said thus far, I question
> that that stands much chance of convincing you, but I do think that we need
> a clear definition of the proposed solution so that we can avoid talking
> passed each other, which seemed to be happening at least some of the time in
> the recent thread. Either way, unless someone can come up with an example of
> the problem or argument about it that somehow convinces you when the
> previous examples and arguments didn't, I'm not sure that there's much point
> in arguing about it without at least having a clear DIP on the topic.
> 
> - Jonathan M Davis

+1 My interpretation is very similar, only difference is that Manu is 
asking for is removal of some artificial restrictions put in place to 
prevent possible problems that probably won't appear in D. I agree with 
the solution you have provided to move forward. I think we're done 
arguing, Walter just doesn't seem to want to accept Manu's use case as-is.