Names of C++ header include guards

[Nathan Myers]

On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 10:41:46AM -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> > What I do not understand is why we removed the _GLIBPCPP prefix (or
> > _CPP_BITS) instead of replacing it just with _GLIBCXX_.  what was the
> > rationale? 
> > 
> > -- Gaby
> 
> Here is a patch to use the _GLIBCXX_ prefix on all the header file
> guards in c_std and std.  

Thank you, Steve.

> ... I could understand the desire for a file guard
> specific suffix as well as the prefix.  I like the prefix since that
> puts everything the _GLIBCXX_ namespace, a suffix could be used to
> seperate it from other _GLIBCXX_ macros if we thought that was
> worthwhile.

Yes, I agree that the prefix is good, and that adding a suffix would be 
better.  There's no plausible reason to limit the lengths of those
identifiers, and compelling reasons not to want them to collide with
anything else accidentally.  It would be even better to put the 
directory name in there -- "_BITS_", "_STD_".  However, it would suffice 
to replace each string with a long random sequence of legal characters 
prefixed with _G_.

Nathan Myers
ncm-nospam@cantrip.org