This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [Patch] Fix libstdc++/7744
Nathan Myers <ncm-nospam at cantrip dot org> writes:
| > (*) Nathan, basing a comment of yours of a few days ago I had believed
| > this was not really an issue:
| > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2003-03/msg00031.html
| > In particular:
| > >> >Finally, mustn't these members' names be uglified, e.g. _M_no_block
| > >> >etc.?
| > >> >
| > >> The other members of __basic_file<char> aren't and I followed the
| > >> existing practice. Should we change all of them?
I would like to revert my previous comment, which I made in confused
| It really depends on whether these names come in with a standard header
| file. If they do, then all the names have to be uglified. My previous
| posting assumed that these classes were only visible if users explicitly
| included the file they appear in, but now it appears that they come in
| with <iostream>.
Given that <iostream> can include any other standard header, any
reserved name used by __basic_file<char> does not need to be uglified.