Re: Rice distribution

[Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>]

Hi,

On 09/06/2012 11:58 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Ulrich Drepper <drepper@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> wrote:
> > > Also, well, we still have to make the final decision whether we want
> > > __rice_distribution or rice_distribution.
> > I didn't have time yesterday and don't know how tonight looks like.
> > I'll make the uglification changes latest tomorrow.
> Regarding uglification.
>
> I am on the fence on this one, with a preference to non-uglification.
> The reason is this: if this is offered as pure extension
> of GNU C++ and we indicate very clearly that user of this extension implies that
> certain names (the one we use in the implementation) are reserved,
> then we should
> be OK.  For this to work, we have to be disciplined in terms of not using our
> extension to implement standard entities in a way that uses non-uglified names.
> I suspect this is where troubles came from in the past.
I get your point, but to be honest I'm not 100% sure the issues in this 
area are so simple. In my opinion, conservatively, before adding further 
non-uglified names to that namespace we should find the time to 
re-analyze in detail:

    http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24537

and the full exchange linked therein. That said, I'm also on the fence, 
like you, I'm just trying to be conservative vs issues like the above.

Paolo.