Re: Namespace for <cfoo> headers incorrect?

[Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>]

On Friday, March 28, 2003, at 12:42 PM, Eric Lemings wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think code like the following is 
> legal
> according to the Standard (and I just read the Standard) but I just 
> compiled
> it with gcc 3.2.2:
>
> #include <ctime> // or any <cfoo> header
>
> int main (void) {
>   time (NULL);  // or any name in <cfoo>
>   return (0);
> }
>
> The problem is that the Standard says that names in <cfoo> are 
> declared in
> the std namespace.  The code above should require a using directive or
> explicit qualification.  No?

NULL is a macro?!  Macro's don't yet have namespaces.