Are we not going too far on a limb just for the sake of
ocassionally saving some extra characters? I personally belong
in the camp holding that more precision is better (i.e. package::thing
is better than worrying about resolution rules to
sort out where "thing" comes from). By the way, I don't
see how 18.2 support the notion that an import is
retroactive. Extern modules won't work with the proposal either. If you
insist, then an "import" between the scope name
and its parameters is way better than retroactive scope rules.
Declarations before uses are very handy and pervasive, lets not
get too creative :0)
>Arturo,
>
>Your suggestion makes good sense for full module declarations, but
>I think it might still have some problems with respect to the extern
>modules syntax of Section 18.7. It's worth exploring further though.
>
>
>
>>the language of the LRM currently supports the notion that
>>an import statement affects declarations in the scope that contains the
>>import, regardless of the relative order of the declarations and imports
>>statements (I believe the end of Section 18.2 supports this notion).
>>
>>
>
>-- Brad
>
>
>
Received on Wed Dec 1 16:06:19 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 01 2004 - 16:06:40 PST