Warp wrote:
>   The problem is that my version is completely valid and there's nothing
> wrong with it, and there's no reason why someone wouldn't write code like
> that. Issuing ten thousand warnings on it makes no sense.

That's true, it IS completely valid, which is why the warnings could be 
disabled.  The real question is not what is valid now, but what 
practices would work best to discourage namming conflicts.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message