# Julep: Taking multiple dispatch,export,import,binary compilation seriously

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julep-taking-multiple-dispatch-export-import-binary-compilation-seriously/10882>\
**Category:** Internals & Design\
**Tags:** namespaces\
**Created:** [May 14, 2018, 9:58am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julep-taking-multiple-dispatch-export-import-binary-compilation-seriously/10882 "2018-05-14T09:58:33Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 42

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![stevengj](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/stevengj/32/71_2.png) [@stevengj](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/stevengj)\
**Post date:** [May 16, 2018, 2:35am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julep-taking-multiple-dispatch-export-import-binary-compilation-seriously/10882/42 "2018-05-16T02:35:29Z")

</div>

> [@Jean\_Michel](#):
>
> On the opposite what is discussed is a (controlled) more general merging of methods.

The current thread began with the proposal to “remove the notion ‘extending’ functions in Base or any other Module.”

You are apparently referring to the [function merging](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/function-name-conflict-adl-function-merging/10335) thread, which made the opposite proposal of merging distinct functions into a single generic function, changing the fundamental semantics of namespaces.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julep-taking-multiple-dispatch-export-import-binary-compilation-seriously/10882)._