libstdc++/3759: nonconforming use of unqualified std:: names
Thu Jul 26 06:31:00 GMT 2001
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gabriel Dos Reis" <email@example.com>
> "David Abrahams" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> | Loren's email doesn't seem to be concerned with the issue of whether the
> | library meets the spec, but with general GNU coding style guidelines in
> | which (I think) I have no stake.
> No. I don't think you undertand Loren's mail correectly. As I
> understand Loren's mail, the issue isn't just about GNU coding style
> -- he used elements from that coding style to justify qualification.
> His concerns, as I undertand it, is to come with a solution
To what? I'm not being (intentionally) obtuse here; it seems like he and you
are concerned with the use of explicit qualification. In the context of this
discussion, I am only concerned with getting the library to meet its spec.
Since there are other ways to do that than adding explicit qualification, it
doesn't seem like there's much for me to contribute to the discussion the
two of you want to have... unless I misunderstand something.
> and an additional "guiding principles" to the existing coding style.
As I wrote, I don't think I have a stake in that part of the discussion.
> | I wasn't planning to respond, but if you
> | think there is a point that merits my direct attention, please forward
> | the excerpt in question.
> I don't know exactly how I'm supposed to behave in face of such a
> condescending tone.
Wow, we really got off on the wrong foot here. I didn't mean to be
condescending. Maybe "merits" isn't the best word and I should have said
"warrants". In any case, I'm just trying to say that I don't think I can add
anything more useful to the discussion than I already have, and I didn't
notice any new opportunities for me to be helpful in Loren's message. If you
did, I'd like you to point me at them so I can try. Otherwise, I think, as
they say, "my work here is done".
More information about the Gcc-bugs