Having export require a corresponding import is a pointless exercise. All it does is produce hard to explain error conditions. Leave the redundant "import p2::*" out of this example. If this extension of the natural language meaning of "export" seems excessive, change the keyword to "transport" or rewrite the BNF to accept "export import p2::*". Greg PS: This is a personal opinion not a Synopsis position. Gordon Vreugdenhil wrote: > > > Bresticker, Shalom wrote: > >> I also do not see that “export p2::*;” >> in p3 does anything since p2 does not appear in an import statement. > > > Sorry, I missed an import p2::* in the example. The point of this > example was that if p1::x is visible via p2 as well as p1 then it > is immaterial whether you export "x" from p1 or p2 (or both) -- the > same declaration is made visible. > > Gord.Received on Wed Sep 20 11:12:10 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Sep 20 2006 - 11:12:27 PDT