Problems with the new concepts checking code (boost)

[Nathan Myers]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 01:37:22PM -0400, Phil Edwards wrote:
> ... 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)  ??

__foo for non-types, _Foo for types, etc.
 
> 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 = _(_::_);

Sorry, the name _ is not reserved.  Not only that, it's used in real
user code.  It is common to say something like

  #define _ gettext

Nathan Myers
ncm at cantrip dot org