Do we really need to type cpp2::unsafe_narrow instead of just unsafe_narrow?

[DyXel]

Title. I know we want to discourage narrowing casts where possible, but usually these utility functions are lowered with the cpp2:: prepended (like new). Unfortunately its pretty common for C APIs to use int where size_t or similar would have made more sense 😦

Another reason I ask is because in all languages I have used, cast utilities are "built-ins" they are not namespaced.

[gregmarr]

Do we really need to type cpp2::unsafe_narrow instead of just unsafe_narrow? #1122

No, you don't have to if you don't want to.

using cpp2::unsafe_narrow;

main: () -> int = { return unsafe_narrow<int>(0); }

[DyXel]

Alright, I guess I mean by default.

[hsutter]

In the case of things like new which are safe and recommended, I go out of my way to make people not have to write cpp2::.

For unsafe_narrow, noisiness is a feature I think, even if it's needed often for C APIs.