Hargraves Gary writes:
> Secondly, I would *postulate* (without setting up to test - which
> you might do) that unless there *was indeed* an ONLY in both
> Modules B_1 and B_2 of your hypothetical example, *and* the
> contents of those two were mutually exclusive; the dual usage in
> Module C would be give errors on compilation.
No. See Giles' reply. This does not count as duplicate declaration.
If there is a contradiction (namely if you end up telling it that
a single name represents 2 different things in the same scope),
then you'll have a problem, but this case isn't a contradiction - you
just have two different sources of the same information (that the
name in question is in the original module).
Note that it is ok to end up having 2 names for the same thing
(by rename); the only problem is if one name represents 2 different
things.
If code like yours wasn't allowed, then life would be awkward for
some things.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
[log in to unmask] | experience comes from bad judgment.
| -- Mark Twain
