🚀 go-pugleaf

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 <NIHCL.h>
>};

My first reaction was Hey, this is pretty good, but look what it would
mean: the rule would have to be that *if* the name following `extern'
were not defined as a type, which is what would normally appear in
that position, *then* treat it as a namespace.  Then someone who
misspelled a type name following `extern' wouldn't find out about it
until link time, and rather indirectly at that.

Besides, the namespace construct *doesn't* mean that the stuff between
the braces is `extern'.  So I would still prefer the keyword
`namespace'.

-- Scott
Gyro@Reasoning.COM