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]