On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 05:58:50PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> So it is (a) or (c).

Ok.

> We are using several C++ libraries now and are likely to use more in
> the future. We can surely say that it is the other libs that we will
> quealify with foo:: and that lyx:: is free to use a using lyx::bar.

Ok. 

I was just afraid that removing the  pos_type typedef would clutter the
code again with lots of white noise. But if 'using lyx::pos_type;' is ok,
it's just a minor pain

> the question is also if we should program with nameclashes in our
> minds or only tackle them when they arises.
> 
> I actually like the lyx:: prefix, then it is clear that this is a
> function from our own code. For me the added clutter does not mean
> much.

I suspected that much. I admit that I have come to using explicit
qualification (mostly std::) more often in my own stuff lately, but I
usually have typedefs "that make sense in the class" around (much like
pos_type in the paragraph stuff right now), so it occurs really seldom.
[I really don't like 'for (...)' spilled over three lines... doesn't make
Good Rectangular Code ;-}] Anyway, seems to be my personal problem...

Andre'

-- 
André Pönitz .............................................. [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to