In article 95Jul16213545@erawan.cognex.com, Michael Cook <mcook@cognex.com> () writes:
>In the DWP, in $7 [namespace.alias], paragraph 7, there is an example:
>
> namespace A {
>   int i;
> }
> namespace A1 {
>   using A::i;
>   using A::i; // ok: double declaration
> }
> void f()
> {
>   using A::i;
>   using A::i; // error: double declaration
> }
>
>Why is the first "double decl" okay, but the second "double decl" is an error?



Because namespaces are an incoherent feature--full of nooks, crannies,
edge-cases, artifacts and curios that no one yet has been able to succinctly
explain.  I am an enthusiastic user of C++, but continue to be amazed at
the startling number of namespace examples having perversely unintuitive
results.



---
Marc Shepherd
Salomon Brothers Inc
shepherd@schubert.sbi.com <<These are my opinions, not my employer's.>>

Marc Shepherd (shepherd@debussy.sbi.com) wrote:
> In article 95Jul16213545@erawan.cognex.com, Michael Cook <mcook@cognex.com> () writes:
> >In the DWP, in $7 [namespace.alias], paragraph 7, there is an example:
> >
> > namespace A {
> >   int i;
> > }
> > namespace A1 {
> >   using A::i;
> >   using A::i; // ok: double declaration
> > }
> > void f()
> > {
> >   using A::i;
> >   using A::i; // error: double declaration
> > }
> >
> >Why is the first "double decl" okay, but the second "double decl" is an error?

Maybe because namespaces are additive ? (or maybe not..)

> Because namespaces are an incoherent feature--full of nooks, crannies,
> edge-cases, artifacts and curios that no one yet has been able to succinctly
> explain.  I am an enthusiastic user of C++, but continue to be amazed at
> the startling number of namespace examples having perversely unintuitive
> results.

Yea, that too.

Dom

In the DWP, in $7 [namespace.alias], paragraph 7, there is an example:

 namespace A {
   int i;
 }
 namespace A1 {
   using A::i;
   using A::i; // ok: double declaration
 }
 void f()
 {
   using A::i;
   using A::i; // error: double declaration
 }

Why is the first "double decl" okay, but the second "double decl" is an error?

Michael.