Re: Curious issue with char_traits

[Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>]

Paolo Carlini wrote:

>    2.1- Move all the legacy stuff inside a separate namespace,
>__gnu_legacy, for instance, keeping __gnu_cxx for properly uglifyied
>extensions.
>    2.2- Uglify the legacy stuff (I don't like this idea much, because
>code really using, e.g., copy_n, would have to be fixed in many places)
>    2.3- Remove completely the legacy facilities (also not so good, in
>my opinion, at least we want to keep things like slist, rope).
>  
>
A variant of this idea would be concentrating on the free functions: for
one, AFAICS, there are no dangers coming from classes like slist or
hash_map; also, I bet that most of the users care about the additional
containers much more than the free functions part of <ext/algorithm> and
such. All in all, uglifing only the legacy free functions (together with
__gnu_cxx::char_traits, of course) seems to me a reasonable compromise,
which should fix all the know problems. We can do that only for 4.2, if
we agree, after 4.1 branches and add a disclaimer to the release notes.
I don't think users could reasonably object.

Paolo.