[Bug libstdc++/24537] Non-uglified names inside namespace __gnu_cxx

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24537

Jonathan Wakely  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |INVALID

--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely  ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> Changing status to WAITING to start the timer, but if I don't hear otherwise
> then I'll close it.

tick tick boom.

I'm going to call this INVALID because I don't think there's a bug here.
char_traits is a reserved name, and if users get ambiguities from careless use
of using-directives that's their fault.

[Bug libstdc++/24537] Non-uglified names inside namespace __gnu_cxx

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24537

Jonathan Wakely  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |WAITING

--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely  ---
I would like to suggest closing this bug. I don't think we should rename
__gnu_cxx::char_traits, it uses a reserved name. I don't think there is
anything wrong with e.g. __debug::vector or __gnu_cxx::char_traits and we
shouldn't pick ugly names to avoid problems for users who abuse
using-directives.

Changing status to WAITING to start the timer, but if I don't hear otherwise
then I'll close it.

[Bug libstdc++/24537] Non-uglified names inside namespace __gnu_cxx

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24537

--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely  ---
char_traits shouldn't need to be uglified, because it's a reserved name anyway,
due to std::char_traits. That means users can't define macros with that name.
If they get ambiguities due to "using namespace __gnu_cxx;" then they should
not do that.

Thee are other names that should be uglified though, see PR 64135.

[Bug libstdc++/24537] Non-uglified names inside namespace __gnu_cxx

[bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #3 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-10-27 06:04 ---

Naming wise I think __gnu_ext makes more sense. It's what we should have used
for the extension namespace from the beginning.

-benjamin


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24537

[Bug libstdc++/24537] Non-uglified names inside namespace __gnu_cxx

[pcarlini at suse dot de]

--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de  2005-10-27 09:07 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
 Naming wise I think __gnu_ext makes more sense. It's what we should have used
 for the extension namespace from the beginning.

Of course I'm ok with __gnu_ext. Actually, I'm ok with anything you would
rather prefer, __gnu_legacy was just an example, meant to make totally
clear (for argumentation purposes too) that we are talking about legacy
stuff, indeed.

Anyway, when I will actually prepare a patch, it will move the old HP/SGI
facilities to namespace __gnu_ext, agreed.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24537

[Bug libstdc++/24537] Non-uglified names inside namespace __gnu_cxx

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-10-27 21:55 ---
Confirmed.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-10-27 21:55:03
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24537

[Bug libstdc++/24537] Non-uglified names inside namespace __gnu_cxx

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-10-26 12:34 ---
Seems like to me, this is what namespaces are for anyways?  and non-uglified
names are correct, maybe it needs to be a different namespace like
__gnu_cxx::__implemenation instead which seems like the more correct thing to
do than uglify names.  I think this is what Boost does too.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24537

[Bug libstdc++/24537] Non-uglified names inside namespace __gnu_cxx

[pcarlini at suse dot de]

--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de  2005-10-26 12:37 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
 Seems like to me, this is what namespaces are for anyways?  and non-uglified
 names are correct, maybe it needs to be a different namespace like
 __gnu_cxx::__implemenation instead which seems like the more correct thing to
 do than uglify names.  I think this is what Boost does too.

Indeed, the idea is using namespaces. But seems much more clean to me using
separate namespaces, not nested ones, for our problem: __gnu_cxx for new
extensions and __gnu_legacy for legacy extensions. The implementation proper
bits are instead already inside __gnu_internal.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24537