EEEEKS! The mangling changed!

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Douglas Paul Gregor <gregod@cs.rpi.edu> writes:

| On Tue, 3 Dec 2003, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Douglas Paul Gregor <gregod@cs.rpi.edu> writes:
| > | I think Carlo has a good point here; it's really going to confuse users
| > | and debuggers if std::vector doesn't ever exist. How long until we get a
| > | gdb smart enough to show "std::vector" to users instead of
| > | "__gnu_norm::vector"?
| >
| > Mechanic renaming of __gnu_norm::vetcor<MyType> to std::vector<MyType>
| > makes the assumptions that there is no std::vector<dMyType> lurking
| > there.  Some assumptions does not hold in general -- by design.
| 
| Do user specializations of, e.g., std::vector go into
| __gnu_norm/__gnu_debug or into std? 

They go into std::.

| I'm a little fuzzy on this corner of
| strong using semantics. If the former, I don't see how the assumption
| cannot hold;

yes, of course.

| if the latter, then I agree with you fully. It seems that the
| latter semantics are more desireable.

That is what I have beem arguing for during the preparation of the 
"namespace association" proposal.

-- Gaby