Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Path: utzoo!censor!geac!alias!rae
From: rae@alias.com (Reid Ellis)
Subject: Re: "module" facility for top-level namespace control
Message-ID: <1991May7.230444.23042@alias.com>
Sender: news@alias.com (USENET News)
Organization: Alias Research, Inc. Toronto ON Canada
References: <RAEBURN.91Apr26165646@watch.mit.edu> <1991Apr29.174033.29627@alias.com> 	<1991Apr30.202357.13791@kestrel.edu> 	<1991May1.192611.20568@kestrel.edu> <ROBERTK.91May3145741@lotatg.lotus.com>
Distribution: comp.std.c++
Date: Tue, 7 May 91 23:04:44 GMT

I wrote:
|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 <NIHCL.h>
|};

Scott Layson Burson <gyro@kestrel.edu> writes:
|Oops -- Jerry Schwarz (jss@kpc.com) has corrected me -- the construct
|is rendered unambiguous by the `{'.  So this objection is invalid.

Robert Krajewski <robertk@lotatg.lotus.com> writes:
|What about this one ?
|
|#define NIH "C"

Is this a valid objection?  Anything can be #define'd to anything.  I
wouldn't think that possible preprocessor abuse would be a problem
unique to this situation.  It would be like saying

	What about "#define class struct"?

as an objection to the "class" keyword.

						Reid
--
Reid Ellis
rae@utcs.toronto.edu        ||               rae@alias.com
CDA0610@applelink.apple.com ||      +1 416 362 9181 [work]