5 ms·

I hate when c++ does this. I don't want automatic typedefs, keep the struct so I know what it is. Also causes annoying name conflicts ...

boardwaalk 4y ago
The number of languages that have separate namespaces for the two things is very small. See all the C descendants that discarded that idea: C++, C#, Java, Rust, Go. You probably ought to just find a decent naming scheme to avoid those conflicts…
- Ontonator 4y ago
  I can’t speak for the others, but Rust definitely has separate namespaces for them. See https://doc.rust-lang.org/beta/reference/names/namespaces.html https://doc.rust-lang.org/beta/reference/names/namespaces.ht...
  - Bytewave81 4y ago
    Not the type of namespace being referred to. In this case, it's referring to the requirement to refer to all types of a certain category with a keyword, as in `struct Foo`. In Rust, you can refer to a struct named Foo as just `Foo`.
    - Ontonator 4y ago
      I disagree. There may not be a keyword required to refer to `struct`s specifically, but the namespace that is searched when resolving a symbol is determined by the syntax used to refer to it. For example, in C++, you cannot determine whether `a` is a type or a value in the statement `a * b;` without knowing how it is declared, and C also has this ambiguity once `typedef`s are involved. In Rust, there are no such ambiguities (unless there's something I've missed).
- hvdijk 4y ago
  C++ didn't discard that idea entirely, you can have a struct tag and a function with the same name and you need to be able to do that in order to use stat().
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
xigoi 4y ago
Why would you want to expose implementation details?
lwswl 4y ago
c++ just understands that the only purpose you could e using it for is "struct foo". if you have a function "int foo()" as well, then you'll still need the struct tag(which really is necessary because you can do things like call structs like functions)

boardwaalk 4y ago

The number of languages that have separate namespaces for the two things is very small. See all the C descendants that discarded that idea: C++, C#, Java, Rust, Go. You probably ought to just find a decent naming scheme to avoid those conflicts…

Ontonator 4y ago
I can’t speak for the others, but Rust definitely has separate namespaces for them. See https://doc.rust-lang.org/beta/reference/names/namespaces.html https://doc.rust-lang.org/beta/reference/names/namespaces.ht...
- Bytewave81 4y ago
  Not the type of namespace being referred to. In this case, it's referring to the requirement to refer to all types of a certain category with a keyword, as in `struct Foo`. In Rust, you can refer to a struct named Foo as just `Foo`.
  - Ontonator 4y ago
    I disagree. There may not be a keyword required to refer to `struct`s specifically, but the namespace that is searched when resolving a symbol is determined by the syntax used to refer to it. For example, in C++, you cannot determine whether `a` is a type or a value in the statement `a * b;` without knowing how it is declared, and C also has this ambiguity once `typedef`s are involved. In Rust, there are no such ambiguities (unless there's something I've missed).
hvdijk 4y ago
C++ didn't discard that idea entirely, you can have a struct tag and a function with the same name and you need to be able to do that in order to use stat().

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

xigoi 4y ago

Why would you want to expose implementation details?

lwswl 4y ago

c++ just understands that the only purpose you could e using it for is "struct foo". if you have a function "int foo()" as well, then you'll still need the struct tag(which really is necessary because you can do things like call structs like functions)