Re: Problems with the new concepts checking code (boost)

[Phil Edwards <pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com>]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 12:51:51AM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Phil Edwards <pedwards@disaster.jaj.com> writes:
> | On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 11:48:36PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> | > Thanks.  Please make sure the library doesn't use identifiers in
> | > user-namespace, that is using glibcpp_function_requires for example is
> | > not right.  Thats is why the library has always been "uglified".
> | 
> | Oh, I took care not to step on toes, at least I hope I did.
> 
> The following does not work
> 
> 	#define function_requires 1
> 	#include <vector>
> 
> 	int main() { }

Okay, I must admit I never thought of anything quite that evil.


> | All of them expand into things which are
> | fully-qualified by the boost namespace; we never use any 'using' statements
> | of any kind.
> 
> CPP has no notion of `using' -- it just has no notion of C++ scope.

I know.   My point wa-- hmm, actually, my point just became moot in the
face of the twisted example you provided above.  (Yes, yes, it's perfectly
valid and not really evil, it's just in user-namespace...)

Before I make a sed sweep through the headers to prepend underscores,
let me get some input on a related question: should we keep all of this
in namespace boost, given that we're about to rename every class and
every function?  Is it time to make some "GNU C++ extensions" namespace
(called glibcpp, glibcxx, gnu_cxx, etc[*]), sequester the concept-checking
code there, and remove occurances of "boost" entirely?

As much as I'd hoped to keep our version in line with the still-maintained
original, I don't think that the code should be uglified AND kept in
namespace boost.


Phil
[*]  heh heh heh... "namespace _" would be well outside user-space...

-- 
pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com  |  pme at sources dot redhat dot com
devphil at several other less interesting addresses in various dot domains
The gods do not protect fools.  Fools are protected by more capable fools.