4 ms·
> But I think the point is that namespaces functions would need to be mangled Namespaces don't need to be mangled at all if they are interpreted as symbol pref
by rumanator 7y ago
> But I think the point is that namespaces functions would need to be mangled
Namespaces don't need to be mangled at all if they are interpreted as symbol prefixes.
I'd prefer that, say, namespace foo::bar resolved into foo_bar for all symbols (even that meant risking namespace naming collisions) to not having any support for namespaces in C.
In fact, this approach is already used to implement pseudo-namespaces, so that wouldn't be much of a stretch.
- john111 7y agoWhat's the point? How is typing foo::bar better than typing foo_bar? It seems like you want the language to be more complicated for no benefit. Why not use C++ at that point?
- rumanator 7y ago> What's the point? How is typing foo::bar better than typing foo_bar? You're missing the whole point of namespaces. The goal is not to replace foo_bar with foo::bar. The whole point is that within a scope you can type bar instead of foo::bar, or bar instead of foo::baz::qux::bar, because you might have multiple identifiers that might share a name albeit they are expected to be distinct symbols. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namespace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namespace
- einpoklum 7y ago> What's the point? using namespace kind::ofa::long_name; or using kind::ofa::long_name::bar; is the point.