fullyQualifiedLogicalName syntax

The spec says:

 

The format of fullyQualifiedLogicalName SHALL be consistent with the programming language in which the programmatic construct specified by that logical location was expressed.

EXAMPLE 1: C: create_process

EXAMPLE 2: C++: Namespace1::Class::Method(int, double) const &&

EXAMPLE 3: C#: Namespace1.Class.Method(string, int[])

But we’ve talked about loosening that SHALL because you had some examples where it didn’t make sense. (I placed a comment in the change draft for #145 to remind me to take this up with you.)

 

What’s the scenario where FQLN doesn’t match a programming language construct? Did it have to do with tools that analyzed in-memory object models rather than source code?

 

Larry