This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH v3 headers] variable uglification


On 09/19/2010 11:59 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Paolo Carlini wrote on Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 11:10:10AM CEST:
>   
>>> I noticed that C++ header uglification seems to be a slow manual
>>> process.  That looks suboptimal, and shouldn't be the case, it
>>> should be mostly automatic and quick (in terms of developer time).
>>>   
>>>       
>> Well, I agree, but it seems to me that the issue normally is rather
>> academic because people working on the C++ runtime full time *know from
>> the outset* that uglification is required, *never* write first
>> un-uglified names and then fix each name in a second pass.
>>     
> This statement seems to be at odds with several files below include/ext.
> For example, include/ext/pb_ds/assoc_container.hpp seems not uglified at
> all.  Does it maybe not need uglification for some reason, and if so, is
> there some rule I'm overlooking for which files don't need it?
>   
We are exactly talking about one of those "interesting" cases of
accidental contributors, at least for ext/pb_ds. This guy contributed
the code (we were interested to its substance and we didn't want to
enforce our normal policy about uglification as a mandatory requirement
before committing) and then disappeared, sigh.

For some other bits of ext/ which you may find odd, consider that it
also hosts legacy stuff, other code contributed by accidental
contributors and moved here, etc. I think something is wrong also in
typelist.h.

For patches I will personally review and approve, this kind of
sloppiness is not going to happen anymore, I promise.

Paolo.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]