On 2020/01/23 11:33:11, lemzwerg wrote: > I'm quite sure that you have more experience with C++ than me, however, I'm not > really happy with this change since it makes the code substantially uglier. > Isn't there another solution for the problem? > > https://codereview.appspot.com/579240043/diff/577360043/flower/include/file-name.hh > File flower/include/file-name.hh (right): > > https://codereview.appspot.com/579240043/diff/577360043/flower/include/file-name.hh#newcode47 > flower/include/file-name.hh:47: std::string root_; > This is very ugly. What about using the `std` namespace within a group instead?
I'd say that ship has sailed by virtue of the C++ standard committee. Most current changes of Dan are supposed to bring the LilyPond code base in line with what C++ programmers are used to experiencing. And for better or worse, std:: most certainly has become part of that experience. So I am with Dan here. https://codereview.appspot.com/579240043/
