Re: Generic package parameters not externally visible : what's the rational ?

["Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.acm.org>]

Randy Brukardt wrote:
> 
> The main point is, it isn't clear either way: both choices aren't ideal. So 
> one was chosen. And changing it surely would be incompatible, at the very 
> least with use-visibility (if you start adding names, those names could 
> become invisible if there are collisions) -- and it is insufficiently broken 
> to take on that incompatibility.

One possible rationale is:

In order to reference the generic parameters from the instance, you have to have 
visibility of the instantiation. If you have visibility of the instantiation, 
then you have visibility of the generic actual parameters used in the 
instantiation. Therefore, you do not need visibility of the generic parameters 
from the instance, so why complicate the language by providing it?

-- 
Jeff Carter
"We'll make Rock Ridge think it's a chicken
that got caught in a tractor's nuts!"
Blazing Saddles
87