David Megginson wrote: > > 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? >
I believe so, although some just ignore namespace declarations (gcc-2.95!). My only guideline is Boost, it targets many the same platforms we do (and some we don't). Cheers, Bernie _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
