Re: [RFC] libstdc++/6720 and libstdc++/6671

[Nathan Myers <ncm-nospam at cantrip dot org>]

On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 02:34:52PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> In a nutshell, it looks like the idea of giving the ext/ extension 
> headers the same name of the corresponding standard headers (e.g., 
> <algorithm> => <ext/algorithm>) was not so good after all :-(
>
> Probably, some confusion stems from entry 5.4 of the FAQ, which hints at 
> the possibility of using -I: now this is not an option, since, when a 
> standard header tries to include another standard header which has a 
> corresponding extension in ext/, it ends up including the latter, 
> instead of the former!!

Standard headers were once limited in what they were allowed to 
sub-include.  Having <algorithm> forward to to <bits/std_algorithm.h>
wasn't done just because I liked clutter.  When you discard the 
solution, the problems come back.
 
> In fact, as suggested in 6671, we could simply change the docs
> forbidding the use of -I. Alternatively, we could rename the new
> ext headers (perhaps just adding a .h, Nathan?) Finally, as far as
> hash_map, hash_set, rope and slist are involved, we could suggest
> using -idirafter instead of -I (I did so in answering 6720)

Of course it is still possible to go back to the more-disciplined
header naming scheme; the ABI would not be affected.  Unfortunately,
the ABI does not allow us to improve on the poorly-named ext/ headers
until 3.2.

I agree that changing the FAQ is/was also a good idea.  It's better
to advise fixing code than to suggest ways to avoid fixing it.

Nathan Myers
ncm at cantrip dot org