🚀 go-pugleaf

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 <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.

Oops -- Jerry Schwarz (jss@kpc.com) has corrected me -- the construct
is rendered unambiguous by the `{'.  So this objection is invalid.

-- Scott
Gyro@Reasoning.COM