On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 12:13 -0400, Steve Huston wrote: > Hi, > > In working on the Windows port, I've come across a few places where > there's C++ using-directives such as: > > using namespace qpid::framing;
I believe the intent of this code is "using qpid::framing", and the code author got a little confused! > > ... > > int MyClass::Method (framing::Buffer &b) > ... > > g++ is ok with this construct, but Microsoft Visual C++ complains that > framing is unknown. Essentially, what VC wants is either: > > using qpid::framing; > > Or > > using namespace qpid; > > With code as is today, apparantly VC is trying to find "framing" > within "qpid::framing", but not use "qpid::framing" itself. > > I don't know C++ language and verse well enough to say what's right > with any authority, but I believe MSVC is right here (and I think the > Solaris compiler did the same thing). So far this sort of thing has > been fixed by prepending qpid:: to the method signature (in the > example above). I'm not 100%, but I think you're correct that g++ is too lenient here - the best place to test this is on the dinkumware website using the edg compiler. > ... > How does this sound? I can put a jira for this as well, if it merits > further discussion, but I don't want to get into a code format war. On the whole I don't feel all that strongly about it, but I tend to think that being more explicit is better so I'd prefer to see: using qpid::framing; using qpid::sys; etc. in the files that merit it, rather than a blanket: using namespace qpid; Andrew
