Re: using `use' : what is the best practice ?

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Le Tue, 07 Jun 2011 21:38:32 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
> I would prefer stricter rules on
> declarations hiding each other (requiring explicit resolution of all
> conflicts) [*]. I definitely want a stronger than "use", transitive  
> clause
> to incorporate the declaration scope of a package into the scope of  
> another
> package. I would like to have multiple parents too.
>
> -----------------------
> * When people play this card against MI, they forget that packages allow
> exactly same. And if fully qualified names were a solution for packages,
> why it could not be for MI as well?
Yes, right. People frightened of MI seems to have not understood this is  
all about name conflict [*]. And we all know the way to solve this.

[*] And that is purely syntactical, this is not even conceptual! So MI is  
probably rejected mostly for syntactical-like matters.

-- 
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.”  [Epigrams on  
Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [Idem]
“c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */” [Anonymous]