On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 5:01 AM Zopolis0 via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> > This is a claim made without any evidence that such a thing (using
> > namespaces "without wrapping files in namespace blocks") is even
> >*desireable* let alone something worthy of a language change.
>
> I'm not sure how to give "evidence" that something is desirable.
> Something is desirable if people desire it. Clearly, you do not desire it,
> but I do.
>

You present the problem or friction you're trying to address, and then you
demonstrate why your proposed solution solves the problem or alleviates the
friction.

At the moment, I don't even understand what you're trying to accomplish.
There are no examples in the paper to help me understand this, and the
extent of the proposal is the single sentence "This paper proposes to allow
the establishment of namespace scopes in an export-declaration and define a
syntax
for doing so." -- and I'm not sure what that means.


>
> > Why do you want this? Why is this a good thing for the language,
> > besides your apparent personal distaste for visible namespace blocks?
>
> Genuine question here, what do you want me to say?
> I want this for the reasons I listed. To not have to wrap implementation
> files in namespace blocks, and to be able to simply and clearly declare a
> namespace. Out of the three main projects I work on, all of them have
> different ways of handling the namespace issue, none of which are
> satisfactory, to me or the authors.
>
> This is a good thing for the language, in my opinion, because of the
> reasons I listed. It solves the issue of how to export namespaces in a way
> that is compact, clear, simple and works well in several situations.
>

There are no reasons listed. What is "the namespace issue"? And in what way
is the existing solution of how to export namespaces not compact?

These are all the sorts of things that the paper should address.

Barry