Stephan Witt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Maybe, but what's with the library SigC? Isn't it bad too?
No not really, in SigC it is called SigC::Object it is we that are
doing something bad in draging that into the global namespace in a
header file.
If I were to decide we would begin using
Stephan Witt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Maybe, but what's with the library SigC? Isn't it bad too?
No not really, in SigC it is called SigC::Object it is we that are
doing something bad in draging that into the global namespace in a
header file.
If I were to decide we would begin using
"Duncan" == Duncan Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Duncan so X11 has grabbed Object too...
Yes, that's the problem. We have a SigC::Object that is brought into
global space (because some compilers do not have namespaces). However,
Object is only defined for Xt and xforms does not rely on
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Duncan" == Duncan Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Duncan so X11 has grabbed Object too...
Yes, that's the problem. We have a SigC::Object that is brought into
global space (because some compilers do not have namespaces). However,
Object is only defined
> "Duncan" == Duncan Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Duncan> so X11 has grabbed Object too...
Yes, that's the problem. We have a SigC::Object that is brought into
global space (because some compilers do not have namespaces). However,
Object is only defined for Xt and xforms does not
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> > "Duncan" == Duncan Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Duncan> so X11 has grabbed Object too...
>
> Yes, that's the problem. We have a SigC::Object that is brought into
> global space (because some compilers do not have namespaces). However,
> Object
In general it is *very dangeruous* to assume that this or that header is not
included for any reason. The chance of this "non bug" ot breaking a {Open Mo,
Mo,Less}tif port is at least 99.99% (my estimate is 120%). Anything that needs
Xmu or Xt is probably fatal. If you are going to use X11
Duncan Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| In general it is *very dangeruous* to assume that this or that header is not
| included for any reason. The chance of this "non bug" ot breaking a {Open Mo,
| Mo,Less}tif port is at least 99.99% (my estimate is 120%). Anything that needs
| Xmu or Xt
Well, if you insit on using a single _ prefix you can get burned. It is knwon
and systenm lbraries make hevay use of names starying with _ to avoid names in
your programs. If you had used ObjectRec instead of _ObjectRec you would have
avodied trouble. However there is more... X11/XInstric.h,
In general it is *very dangeruous* to assume that this or that header is not
included for any reason. The chance of this "non bug" ot breaking a {Open Mo,
Mo,Less}tif port is at least 99.99% (my estimate is 120%). Anything that needs
Xmu or Xt is probably fatal. If you are going to use X11
Duncan Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| In general it is *very dangeruous* to assume that this or that header is not
| included for any reason. The chance of this "non bug" ot breaking a {Open Mo,
| Mo,Less}tif port is at least 99.99% (my estimate is 120%). Anything that needs
| Xmu or
Well, if you insit on using a single _ prefix you can get burned. It is knwon
and systenm lbraries make hevay use of names starying with _ to avoid names in
your programs. If you had used ObjectRec instead of _ObjectRec you would have
avodied trouble. However there is more... X11/XInstric.h,
12 matches
Mail list logo
