Re: Proposal for Include files/headers

Slawomir Lisznianski wrote:
> I think the existing C++ lookup rules are very criptic and not as safe 
> as many people assume. Yes, the operator+ is visible without "using", 
> but there are plenty of other issues to worry about. Some of them are 
> described here: http://boost-consulting.com/writing/qn.html

Agreed: C++ rules are not clear and lead to very interesting situations. 
  That does not however mean we should abandon some kind of contextual 
name lookup.

>   Math.Complex a, b; // primary deduced from namespace name

This I consider too bulky.  Plus I can give an example below of why it 
doesn't work.

>   class Matrix<Math.Matrix>;

I used this as an example to show resolution in *odd* cases of overlap.

> C++ spec-- admittedly at the cost of being explicit when referring to 
> types.

namespace Precise {
	class Complex;
	class Integer;
}
namespace Rough {
	class Complex;
	class Integer;
}

using namespace Rough;	//while programming
Complex a;
Integer b;

The above shows a good situation where you shouldn't be using absolute 
namespaces since you intend on replacing them later with something else.

>     Math.Matrix rotate( Math.Matrix mat, Math.Float deg );

This naming is too bulky.  You can't just say library developers have to 
worry about it, since every non-trivial program includes library 
development.  The above syntax gets wieldly and although not prone to 
failure, prone to wasted typing.  I shouldn't have to do the thinking 
for the compiler, let it do some work as well.

--

-- 
edA-qa mort-ora-y
Idea Architect
http://disemia.com/

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5047&alloc_id=10808&op=click