Re: [Patch] Qualify standard functions with std:: in stl_algo.h

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

On Sun, Jun 29, 2003 at 10:57:25PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> this is another bit of the work you envisaged a while ago
> (about 6 months)...

Wow, thanks Paolo!  This had long vexed me.  I wonder, though
if they shouldn't say "::std::" instead.  Anyway this is better
than before, and switching to "::std::" later would not break 
binary compatibility -- at least not with any correct program!

> Very boring but for one thing: ordering becomes important and
> I had to declare 'merge' (both versions) and 'partial sort'
> in advance. Is this ok/expected? I'm not sure that reshuffling
> is even possible and adding a full set of declarations seems
> overkilling...

Duplication is the problem.  Usually we prefer to add another header 
under bits/ and include it wherever the names are needed, assuming
that you can't just sub-include the whole header where the names are
rightfully declared.  (An example where this would be impossible is
when it introduces a circular dependency; see HEADER_POLICY.)  Also,
if a header is to be sub-included, it's always worth checking if it
suffices to include it in the .tcc file only.  Finally, (also re:
HEADER_POLICY) sub-includes should never name the "official" header
(e.g. <algorithm>) they should name the internal name (e.g.
<std/std_algorithm.h>).

I suppose we could verify coverage by sub-including it in another 
namespace, something like

  #include <algorithm>
  namespace dummy {
  #  include <iterator>
  }

but then you would have to instantiate them all, too.

By the way, when you touch all or most of the objects in a header, 
you don't have to name them all in the change log.  Just say "lots".
The point of mentioning the file and object is so somebody reading
has an answer to the question, "what changed?".  To know what to put 
there, imagine yourself reading the changelog, looking for a hint of
which change broke your program.

Nathan Myers
ncm-nospam@cantrip.org