> Hello. I've been checking the proposal to add modules to C++ and it's
> great! I know there's quite a few time left for that proposal to be
> added to the language. But anyway, I have some suggestions for modules
> in C++. I know it's not a finished proposal, so maybe what I say here
> is quite obvious but has not been included in the paper.
>
> The paper is here:
>
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2316.pdf
>
> 2.- When using an import directive, I think that it would be useful
> that the import directive had an implicit using namespace, because
> it's soooo verbose to use today's c++ with namespaces, that people (at
> least this is true for me and some friends I know) don't nest more
> than two namespace just because of its verbosity.

> 1. if the namespace is very big named (including the nesting and such), but
> here a better option is a local shorter namespace alias

> 2. if the namespace has not many "generic" names (std is the opposite,
> having alot of too general names such as "list", "vector", "pair" that have
> high chance of name clashes)

> 3. if the "using namespace" is done in a very local context, such as a
> function body or a "cpp" file (but mandating "import" to do "using
> namespace" breaks this completely since people would want to use "import"

> I do not agree. If people need "using namepsace" they can do it in the
> current proposal but alot of people (such as myself) do not need it and
> your sugestion would force it for these people. I wouldn't use "using
> namespace" for ANY big namespace with alot of common names (one good
> example is "std" where it makes sense to write "std::list" as oposed to
> just "list" since in a big project you have several kinds of lists from
> various places).

> BTW, I am one of those having alot of nested namespaces (max 3 levels, but I
> do have alot of 2 levels namespaces) and I don't mind at all the verbosity
> especially since you can opt it out with "using namespace", "using" or
> namespace aliases to make local short aliases for longer namespaces (such
> as I do for "boost::filesystem" which usually gets a "bfs" alias almost
> everywhere in non-header code).

>

>> I do not agree. If people need "using namepsace" they can do it in the
>> current proposal but alot of people (such as myself) do not need it and
>> your sugestion would force it for these people. I wouldn't use "using
>> namespace" for ANY big namespace with alot of common names (one good
>> example is "std" where it makes sense to write "std::list" as oposed to
>> just "list" since in a big project you have several kinds of lists from
>> various places).

>
> Please. Read the proposal before answering because I think you didn't:
>
> 1.- The import directive won't force anyone not to fully qualify names
> if they want to.
> 2.- You can disambiguate std::list or mylib::list if you want to, as
> you would do anyway.

> On 27 feb, 17:53, dizzy roedu.net> wrote:
>
> I wouldn't use "using
> namespace" for ANY big namespace with alot of common names (one good
> example is "std" where it makes sense to write "std::list" as oposed
> to just "list" since in a big project you have several kinds of lists
> from various places).
>
> The implicit using directive wouldn't force you not to use std::list
> in the case of ambiguity, so you don't get ANY problem with
> name clashes.