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

Reply via email to