Bernie Bright writes: > Refactoring SimGear is probably a Good Thing since it has accumulated > some cruft over time and some areas need reworking. However I don't > think that having bogus top level classes is a good idea. Instead I > propose we use namespaces. Perhaps a top level SimGear namespace with > second level namespaces corresponding to the major functional divisions, > as you've outlined. I think we should eliminate the Misc group as well. > > I've been using the Boost libraries (http://www.boost.org) for some time > now and that is what they do. Portability is one of Boost's goals. I > also wouldn't mind the opportunity to refactor the compiler > configuration stuff similar to how Boost has done it.
I agree strongly on namespaces -- they'll eliminate some of our MSVC conflicts as well, especially if people avoid using global #defines whenever possible. Do all of our target compilers now support them? All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel