From h.wickham at gmail.com  Fri May 30 21:08:45 2014
From: h.wickham at gmail.com (Hadley Wickham)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 14:08:45 -0500
Subject: [Rd] Style question
In-Reply-To: <5388D67C.7010807@fhcrc.org>
References: <CAOVYLHcgBqBmFMhSnx3hRELV4D9ijdHRoG=SmnRx8g=6f90F3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<538654A4.60402@fhcrc.org>
	<CABdHhvHP7VRmU6Z68EDieEPOsyqUkFRrkuG=ohO0f8V5J0tWUw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5388B803.8030506@fhcrc.org>
	<CABdHhvE41f+cpngPjvXtCpbDiy68zBK-Qq-rQXt7c4ueW9FF=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<5388D67C.7010807@fhcrc.org>
Message-ID: <CABdHhvG1hvLxWR81Q+PbKkJv20=cx1Gbnhy+KfMyNYQ9AS7Kyw@mail.gmail.com>

> Finally, now that the use of a NAMESPACE became mandatory (well, this
> happened a few years ago), advocating systematic use of foo::whatever()
> without explicitly importing the function sounds a little bit like an
> heroic act of resistance ;-)

I don't think that's at all true - for most other programming
languages, the preferred style is to explicitly refer to functions,
including their namespace/package etc.

Hadley

-- 
http://had.co.nz/



[Rd] Style question
Hadley Wickham