4 ms·

This is a completely different topic though, and I think there's interest in shipping something like that. That's the main problem with “just add namespace FFS

This is a completely different topic though, and I think there's interest in shipping something like that. That's the main problem with “just add namespace FFS” discussions that come every other week: everyone has its own vision of what namespace should look like and what they are meant for, but nobody has ever taken the time to write an RFC with supporting arguments. In fact, people bring this mostly in ways that are related to name squatting (like right here) even though that's not a problem namespace can solve in the first place. It's magical thinking at its finest.

Macha 2y ago
> nobody has ever taken the time to write an RFC with supporting arguments. https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3243-packages-as-optional-namespaces.html https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3243-packages-as-optional-n... https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3243 https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3243
- littlestymaar 2y ago
  Exactly, this isn't about “default namespace”, this is the other feature which I said had support (didn't know the RFC had been merged though, thanks for pointing that out). This isn't the kind of namespace people say they want to prevent squatting.