Re: PATCH: libstdc++/7680 (related to RFC posted last week)

[Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>]

On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 07:48:18PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> | Your namespace usage is fine to me. We seem to be heading in the
> | direction of multiple implementation namespaces, which I think is a good
> | idea as long as we all agree what goes where. I did think that all
> | __gnu_cxx bits were private already though. Would this imply that
> | __gnu_cxx is not private?

Well, it kinda tromps on the extensions we've been telling users about.


> If we think that we don't have enough namespaces, then I would suggest
> that we make any new namespace a sub-namespace of __gnu_cxx.

I agree, in fact the allocator-rewrite experiment is currently using classes
like __gnu_cxx::__policy::_NoLocking for the behind-the-scenes work.


Phil

-- 
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace.  We seek
not your counsel, nor your arms.  Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.            - Samuel Adams