>> ... renam[ing] of everything from Fl_/fl_foo to fltk::foo >> seems like a waste of effort.
> [...] > I don't think Bill's idea is to rename "Fl_Foo" to "fltk::Foo", > but to use the pristine form: "Foo". > > Yes, it would be a substantial effort, but namespaces are probably > the Right Way(tm), and perhaps are worth the effort. When it comes to actual use, I'm namespace neutral. However, during the process of merging fltk1 and fltk2 I can see that they are a double-edged sword. If fltk1 moves to namespaces early, comparison of code with fltk2 *may* be easier, but the existing fltk1 codebase then can't be used for regression testing, and there will also be a massive jump in the fltk1 code base that will prevent easy backtracking to find bugs, bug fixes and general change points[*]. If fltk1 moves to namespaces late, comparison is hard, but regression and tracebacks are easier. Tough call. Cheers Duncan [*] Just like reformatting all fltk1 code for a new coding standard. _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
