Re: [v3] long long, c99 support

[Gabriel Dos Reis <Gabriel dot Dos-Reis at cmla dot ens-cachan dot fr>]

Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com> writes:

| Hey Gaby.
| 
| > I'd rather have c99 inside std::.  We can't make the assumption that
| > c99 isn't a sensible user-reserved identifier name (generated codes
| > tends to looks really ugly).  If afterwards, it turns out that c99 is
| > really a reserved name, then it is easy to use namespace alias to do
| > the right thing.  
| > 
| > 	namespace std 
| > 	{
| > 	    namespace c99 { }
| > 	    using namespace c99;
| > 	}
| 
| How is this any better, just out of curiosity? 

The point here being that ::c99 is no longer reserved.  I don't think
it is a good idea to reserve ::c99.  V3 is making too much assumptions.

| ... Perhaps it's late. 

I got to mails only this morning.  

I'm strongly opposed to reserving ::c99 -- that was certainly
contained in the discussion we had.

| > Well, I prefer to leave <math.h> as is: to test C++ as proper.
| > One add additional test for testing <cmath> but the test with <math.h>
| > should not be removed.
| 
| Yeah. I know, me too. The reality is that the <math.h> solution is 
| relatively far-off, whereas <cmath> is now mostly fixed.

But, we should not remove testcases which show something is broken with
V3.

-- Gaby