[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gtkmm
Subject:    Re: [Re: [gtkmm] gnome-- and gcc-3.0]
From:       Falk Hueffner <falk.hueffner () student ! uni-tuebingen ! de>
Date:       2001-06-25 13:22:01
[Download RAW message or body]

Carl Nygard <cjnygard@fast.net> writes:

> On 23 Jun 2001 18:27:19 +0200, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> > Joe Yandle <jwy@divisionbyzero.com> writes:
> > 
> > > > *Never* add using in a header file. It defeats the point of namespaces
> > > > and breaks user code. Qualify everything.
> > > 
> > > In my own code, I agree with you fully.  However, I don't have to
> > > worry about supporting older compilers.  IIRC, there was a very long
> > > discussion about how to deal with old and new compilers immediately
> > > after RH7 was released.  Does anyone remember what the conclusions
> > > of that debate were?  (my brain is entirely too dead right now to
> > > search the archives myself, i just got back from ansterdam ;)
> > 
> > gcc supports having qualifiers since at least 2.95, so this should be
> > acceptable. (2.95 ignores "std::" hardwired.)
> 
> I don't think ignoring 'std::' counts as "support".  This is essentially
> the same as "using namespace std;" except does it behind your back and
> prevents someone from writing their own 'plus<>' template in the global
> namespace while relying on the std::plus<> at the same time.  
> 
> Support that's not really support is more confusing and dangerous...

What I meant is that writing "std::string" works and does what you
expect with gcc 2.95. Whether we call this "support" is not really an
interesting point.

	Falk

_______________________________________________
to unsubscribe or change your subscription parameters :
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gtkmm-main

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]