Re: Bikeshed discussion on name of library file for Filesystem TS

["Stephen M. Webb" <stephen dot webb at bregmasoft dot ca>]

On 09/25/2014 05:19 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 24 September 2014 22:43, Tim Shen wrote:
>>
>> libc++file.a may not be a good name, since libc++ is a different thing :)
> 
> Yup :-)
> 
> But maybe it would make sense to both use the same name for this
> library? Users are unlikely to be able to link with -lstdc++fs -lc++fs
> at the same time, so if we had the same name they wouldn't have to
> have conditionals in their makefiles depending on the implementation
> being used.
> 
> For example, every UNIX-like OS has libc, libpthread, librt, libnsl,
> etc. with common names, not libgnuc/libbsdc/libsunc etc.

That's not entirely true. There are many competing offering of, say, the standard C library and it's possible to
parallel-install them.  A typical Linux distribution, for example, might allow both glibc and ulibc to be installed, and
offers a system that can switch a symbolic 'libc' link between them.  These very systems are also the same systems on
which you might find both libc++ and libstdc++ parallel-installed.

I would say give the libraries a distinguished name (eg. libstdc++fs) and let the target distribution mechanisms take
care of distribution problems.

-- 
Stephen M. Webb  <stephen.webb@bregmasoft.ca>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature