Re: Kill the internal namespace

2015-01-29 Thread Kapil Arya
for messages.proto. If we kill the internal namespace altogether, it would make it much easier to expose some headers as public headers for modularization, etc.. This will also help us get rid of namespace internal from some of the public headers that we already have

Re: Kill the internal namespace

2015-01-27 Thread Jie Yu
and the effects on upgrades, etc., if we change the namespace/package for these protobufs. If this turns out to be a real concern, we can possibly keep the internal namespace for messages.proto. If we kill the internal namespace altogether, it would make it much easier

Re: Kill the internal namespace

2015-01-27 Thread Dominic Hamon
for messages.proto. If we kill the internal namespace altogether, it would make it much easier to expose some headers as public headers for modularization, etc.. This will also help us get rid of namespace internal from some of the public headers that we already have

Re: Kill the internal namespace

2015-01-27 Thread Adam Bordelon
/package for these protobufs. If this turns out to be a real concern, we can possibly keep the internal namespace for messages.proto. If we kill the internal namespace altogether, it would make it much easier to expose some headers as public headers for modularization, etc

Re: Kill the internal namespace

2015-01-27 Thread Kapil Arya
the internal namespace for messages.proto. If we kill the internal namespace altogether, it would make it much easier to expose some headers as public headers for modularization, etc.. This will also help us get rid of namespace internal from some of the public

Re: Kill the internal namespace

2015-01-27 Thread Benjamin Hindman
to be a real concern, we can possibly keep the internal namespace for messages.proto. If we kill the internal namespace altogether, it would make it much easier to expose some headers as public headers for modularization, etc.. This will also help us get rid of namespace internal from some

Re: Kill the internal namespace

2015-01-27 Thread Kapil Arya
possibly keep the internal namespace for messages.proto. If we kill the internal namespace altogether, it would make it much easier to expose some headers as public headers for modularization, etc.. This will also help us get rid of namespace internal from some of the public headers

Re: Kill the internal namespace

2015-01-27 Thread Dominic Hamon
keep the internal namespace for messages.proto. If we kill the internal namespace altogether, it would make it much easier to expose some headers as public headers for modularization, etc.. This will also help us get rid of namespace internal from some of the public headers that we

Re: Kill the internal namespace

2015-01-26 Thread Vinod Kone
for messages.proto. If we kill the internal namespace altogether, it would make it much easier to expose some headers as public headers for modularization, etc.. This will also help us get rid of namespace internal from some of the public headers that we already have. The motivation

Kill the internal namespace

2015-01-26 Thread Kapil Arya
for these protobufs. If this turns out to be a real concern, we can possibly keep the internal namespace for messages.proto. If we kill the internal namespace altogether, it would make it much easier to expose some headers as public headers for modularization, etc.. This will also help us get rid

Re: Kill the internal namespace

2015-01-26 Thread Niklas Nielsen
keep the internal namespace for messages.proto. If we kill the internal namespace altogether, it would make it much easier to expose some headers as public headers for modularization, etc.. This will also help us get rid of namespace internal from some of the public headers that we

Re: Kill the internal namespace

2015-01-26 Thread Jie Yu
. One possible concern here might be messages.proto and the effects on upgrades, etc., if we change the namespace/package for these protobufs. If this turns out to be a real concern, we can possibly keep the internal namespace for messages.proto. If we kill the internal namespace altogether

Re: Kill the internal namespace

2015-01-26 Thread Kapil Arya
be messages.proto and the effects on upgrades, etc., if we change the namespace/package for these protobufs. If this turns out to be a real concern, we can possibly keep the internal namespace for messages.proto. If we kill the internal namespace altogether, it would make it much easier

Re: Kill the internal namespace

2015-01-26 Thread Kapil Arya
and the effects on upgrades, etc., if we change the namespace/package for these protobufs. If this turns out to be a real concern, we can possibly keep the internal namespace for messages.proto. If we kill the internal namespace altogether, it would make it much easier to expose some headers

Re: Kill the internal namespace

2015-01-26 Thread Cody Maloney
I want to note that if there was any change in behavior around this change that would likely indicate a serious compiler bug. Namespaces are something that is purely programmer visible in C++, the symbol names will change slightly for things that were internal, but nothing else. Things need to be

Re: Kill the internal namespace

2015-01-26 Thread Kapil Arya
. If we kill the internal namespace altogether, it would make it much easier to expose some headers as public headers for modularization, etc.. This will also help us get rid of namespace internal from some of the public headers that we already have. The motivation for killing