Re: Namespaces bug

On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 13:35, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > SH>> I believe the way it was designed was: > SH>> > SH>> namespace A { > SH>> namespace A:B { > SH>> class C { > SH>> } > SH>> } > SH>> } > > That's the same thing. As was noted repeatedly on the lists, ':' has no > semantic meaning, A and A:B are not related in any way. > > One again: > Namespaces are not 'nested'. You can define namespace inside other > namespace, this does not make them related. There's no namespace nesting. > ':' in namespace name does not mean anything. I know, its synactic sugar to give the illusion of nesting. I was just pointing out that I believe that is how it was meant to 'look.' -Sterling -- "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz, The Wizard of Oz