Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!lotus!lotus.com!robertk From: robertk@lotatg.lotus.com (Robert Krajewski) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: "module" facility for top-level namespace control Message-ID: Date: 3 May 91 18:57:40 GMT References: <1991Apr29.174033.29627@alias.com> <1991Apr30.202357.13791@kestrel.edu> <1991May1.192611.20568@kestrel.edu> Sender: news@lotus.com Distribution: comp.std.c++ Organization: /homes/robertk/.organization Lines: 27 In-Reply-To: gyro@kestrel.edu's message of 1 May 91 19:26:11 GMT In article <1991May1.192611.20568@kestrel.edu> gyro@kestrel.edu (Scott Layson Burson) writes: From: gyro@kestrel.edu (Scott Layson Burson) Date: 1 May 91 19:26:11 GMT Distribution: comp.std.c++ Organization: Kestrel Institute, Palo Alto, CA In article <1991Apr30.202357.13791@kestrel.edu> I wrote: >In article <1991Apr29.174033.29627@alias.com> rae@alias.com (Reid Ellis) writes: >>Why don't we simply use a syntax which already evokes this concept -- >>using "extern"? >> >>I don't know if another keyword after the extern is necessary, or >>simply the name of the enclosing scope. Something like the following? >> >>extern NIH { >>#include >>}; ... Oops -- Jerry Schwarz (jss@kpc.com) has corrected me -- the construct is rendered unambiguous by the `{'. So this objection is invalid. What about this one ? #define NIH "C"