On 21 Sep 2008, at 15:19, Dejan Lekic wrote: > Sorry guys but I must repeat this question again. We do not have any > document with plans on where the current FLTK is going to so I must > ask > here: Is there going to be a fltk:: namespace in the future FLTK or > not, > or You plan on sticking to the traditional "Fl_" and "fl_"?
I think that the 1.3 work has to stick with the fl_ / Fl_ business, at least in the short term, to preserve the API compatibility with the 1.1.x codebase. Longer term, I'd be inclined to a more rigourous "namespace" approach. That said, I have become increasingly disillusioned with C++ namespace mechanisms - in particular I have been bitten fairly badly by third party code that is littered with "using namespace xyz" calls, effectively negating the usefulness of namespaces and causing all manner of hard-to-resolve name collisions. To the extent that we went back to putting prefixes on names, even inside the namespace, so that they would not collide with names from the other code. It is a mess. We can surely do better! -- Ian _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
