[Opencxx-users] Re: [opencxx] Re: ANSI C++/Gcc 3.2 compatibility patches

[Alexandre T. <kt...@fr...>]

Le lundi, 10 mar 2003, =E0 19:20 Europe/Paris, Michael Hohmuth a =E9crit =
:

> Grzegorz Jakacki <ja...@he...> writes:
>
>> You have been added to the project. Currently Alexandre Tolmos is
>> finishing his commits wrt. gcc-3.x, there will be an annoucement once =
=20
>> he
>> is done. Before this happens you may want to contact me if you think =20
>> you
>> need any help on branching/merging.
>
> Thanks.
>
> I don't think I need any help with merging, but I would like to have
> some feedback.
>
> I observed that in the current CVS version (which supposedly already
> contains some or all of the previous GCC3 work), there appear some
> "using namespace std" declarations in header files.  This, to my eyes,
> is bad style.  I am working on a project that uses OpenC++ as a
> library, and there it potentially ``hurts'' if a header file imports
> the whole std namespace into the global namespace.

Sorry, I'm responsible for that global namespace pollution :)

I recognize it's brute force but it was the simplest (and dirtiest) way =20
of promoting symbols from the standard library. In the case of of stand =20
alone application it does not hurt but if you intend to use Oc++ as =20
library then it's not the correct way.

> So, once Alexandre is finished, I would like to undo these changes and
> instead revert to the style used in my patch:  The "using namespace
> std" declarations are only allowed to appear in .cc files, and .h
> files reference std symbols using qualified names.

Actually I should have put the "using namespace std" declarations =20
within the "Opencxx" namespace itself; then none of the symbols from =20
the standard library would have been promoted in the global namespace...

> There also is the issue of naming header files coming from standard
> C.  In my original patch, they are included as, for example, <cstring>
> instead of <string.h>, whereas the current CVS version uses the
> latter, older style.  Here, I am planning to leave it at the CVS
> version's style, because I think that it might be more portable.

I think we should move to the new standard headers but I don't know if =20
it would still compile on Win32.

Btw, Grzegorz has got problems compiling with Gcc 3.2.1 (errors in =20
"buffer.cc" pertaining to the "placement new" operator). On my Mac I =20
only have Gcc 3.1. Did you encounter such problems with Gcc 3.2?

Alexandre.

------------------------------------------------------------------------=20
-
Alexandre Tolmos
E-mail:=A0...@fr...
ICQ: 92964905
------------------------------------------------------------------------=20
-
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn."
------------------------------------------------------------------------=20
-