1. Re: More Namespace
Hello all,
Ralf wrote:
>So, in short, two rules, would solve everything:
> - overloading occurs again and again and again when the include
>statement is encountered.
> - only identifiers defined in an include file directly included in the
>current namespace (the
>current file, ie. a library or program) are accessible.
>
>This will, in my eyes, be the most clean approach to handle the namespace
>issue. It makes
>currently broken programs run, and does not add any new construct to the
>language, and
>most of all, when you use it, its quite intuitive.
I agree 100%. Of course, a lot of programs of mine will
break for sure when they try to call a routine that is
defined in a file not directly included. I want to say
that THAT'S OKAY WITH ME. I can change them easily enough.
I don't want Rob's decision to be effected by the fact
that THIS PROPOSAL WILL BREAK CODE.
that's all I got to say about that,
Lewis Townsend
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
