| ▲ | littlestymaar 4 days ago | |||||||
This is a completely different topic though, and I think there's interest in shipping something like that. That's the main problem with “just add namespace FFS” discussions that come every other week: everyone has its own vision of what namespace should look like and what they are meant for, but nobody has ever taken the time to write an RFC with supporting arguments. In fact, people bring this mostly in ways that are related to name squatting (like right here) even though that's not a problem namespace can solve in the first place. It's magical thinking at its finest. | ||||||||
| ▲ | Macha 4 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||
> nobody has ever taken the time to write an RFC with supporting arguments. https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3243-packages-as-optional-n... | ||||||||
| ||||||||