orbitcpp-list

[orbitcpp-list] Proposal to drop the _orbitcpp::c namespace

[Phil D. <ph...@us...>]

Hi All,

I'm proposing that we move the ORBit C stuff into the root namespace,
since trying to use orbitcpp with other applications that use ORBit and
glib is fraught with difficulties otherwise.
E.g. A couple of days ago I attempted to wrap gnorba (the gnome/orbit
event loop integration and activation stuff), but ran into problems with
header files.

Also, gtk-- and gnome-- stick their C stuff in the root namespace.

N.B. The compiler generated C stuff should still be in a separate
namespace to prevent collisions with generated C++ code.

Andreas, Ron, What do you think?

Cheers,

Phil.

Re: [orbitcpp-list] Proposal to drop the _orbitcpp::c namespace

[Andreas K. <ak...@ix...>]

Phil Dawes wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I'm proposing that we move the ORBit C stuff into the root namespace,
> since trying to use orbitcpp with other applications that use ORBit and
> glib is fraught with difficulties otherwise.
> E.g. A couple of days ago I attempted to wrap gnorba (the gnome/orbit
> event loop integration and activation stuff), but ran into problems with
> header files.
> 
> Also, gtk-- and gnome-- stick their C stuff in the root namespace.
> 
> N.B. The compiler generated C stuff should still be in a separate
> namespace to prevent collisions with generated C++ code.
> 
> Andreas, Ron, What do you think?

I've also already addressed the problem in my mini-FAQ in the source
tree. One solution is to include the ORBit and glib headers before any
ORBit-C++ stuff. This works reliably, but anyhow, it's a hack. I don't
object to killing the namespace.

bye
andy

[orbitcpp-list] Proposal to drop the _orbitcpp::c namespace

[Ronald G. <rga...@pi...>]

hey phil,
>>>>> "pd" == Phil Dawes <ph...@us...> writes:

    pd> Hi All,

    pd> I'm proposing that we move the ORBit C stuff into the root
    pd> namespace, since trying to use orbitcpp with other
    pd> applications that use ORBit and glib is fraught with
    pd> difficulties otherwise.  E.g. A couple of days ago I attempted
    pd> to wrap gnorba (the gnome/orbit event loop integration and
    pd> activation stuff), but ran into problems with header files.

    pd> Also, gtk-- and gnome-- stick their C stuff in the root
    pd> namespace.

    pd> N.B. The compiler generated C stuff should still be in a
    pd> separate namespace to prevent collisions with generated C++
    pd> code.

    pd> Andreas, Ron, What do you think?


Well, I tend to lean more towards using the namespaces, but I haven't
worked with this stuff in a bit, or run into the problems you may be
having with them.  I'll have to peek around a bit more since a lot has 
changed since I last took a good look at things...if the trend in
ORBit design makes wrapping things difficult, then we should probably
drop the namespaces.  I'll revisit this real soon.

ron