Outside perspective here and possibly stupid question. Is there any way we could have our cake and eat it too? One of the thinks I like is that it tends to be much more readable than C++, more code than necessary hurts readability of that code. Can the compiler warn when a function is called that is shadowed by another function in a different namespace. This to me seems like the most sane solution, what am I missing?

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018, 14:53 Manu via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

On Sun, 5 Aug 2018 at 16:30, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/4/2018 12:45 AM, Manu wrote:
> > [...]
> I get it, Manu, you don't find my arguments compelling. You've put these forth
> before, and I could repeat myself rebutting each. I expect we're at a dead end
> with that.

So, what you're saying is "I hear you, and I will never change it
because I subjectively prefer it the way it is in spite of every users
experience".
Will you commit to that position officially, so we can refer back to
it in future?

Just support the string namespace? It won't hurt you, our code will be
better, and you'll make us all that actually link to C++ so much
happier for it.

If we produce a DIP to fix this, will you reject it in principle?