Problems with the new concepts checking code (boost)

[Phil Edwards]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 06:49:22PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> | ... 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?
> 
> I'm not opposed to ::__gnu_cxx if that makes your work easier.

Sounds good.  How about some working guidelines:

    1)  Everything from __gnu_cxx is always named in a fully-qualified
        manner, __gnu_cxx::foo.  Er, well, __gnu_cxx::_Foo, etc.
    2)  It must be possible to selectively enable/disable __gnu_cxx
        extensions.
    3)  ??

Obviously we don't want to devote too much time and energy to extensions
when 3.0 is still suffering.


> It's not about being eveil :-)

Now, using _ as a namespace and a potected variable would be twisted
and cruel.  And perfectly valid.  And combined with the use of _ as a
gettext macro, would look more like a series of smiley faces than actual
code:  x = _(_::_);

What we could use is a identifier-uglifing tool.


Phil
whose email doesn't seem to be appearing on the lists

-- 
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.