Re: C++ err msgs [ was Re: building libstdc++-v3 from the 20000105 snapshot dies with multiple def errors. ]

[Jason Merrill <jason at cygnus dot com>]

>>>>> Petter Urkedal <petter@matfys.lth.se> writes:

 > Jason Merrill wrote:
 >> 
 >> I think more Gnuically correct would be
 >> 
 >> std::basic_string<char,
 >>                   std::char_traits<char>,
 >>                   std::allocator<char> >
 >>    ::basic_string (unsigned int, char, std::allocator<char> const &)

 > I don't see how this will look like if we have to split nested
 > templates.  How about

 >     std::basic_string
 >       < char,
 >         std::char_traits<char>,
 >         std::allocator<char>
 >       >::basic_string(unsigned int, char, std::allocator<char> const &)

 > In my own code, I have been using a more schemish approach, which
 > BTW is closer to your suggestion,
    
 >     std::map
 >       < std::basic_string
 >           < char,
 >             std::char_traits<char>,
 >             std::allocator<char> >,
 >         std::pair<int, int> >
 >       ::operator[](std::basic_string
 >                      < char,
 >                        std::char_traits<char>,
 >                        std::allocator<char> >)

This is more Gnuically correct, apart from the space after '<'.  I still
prefer my scheme when it doesn't cause the args to flow off the end of the
line, but this would be fine for longer cases.

 > but that may take some more time to get used to as < and > are
 > not on the same column, and thus more difficult to match with the
 > eye.

I don't think that'll be a problem if the indentation is correct.

Jason