Bernie Bright wrote:
I've been using the Boost libraries (http://www.boost.org) for some time
now and that is what they do. Portability is one of Boost's goals. I
also wouldn't mind the opportunity to refactor the compiler
configuration stuff similar to how Boost has done it.
This might
David Megginson wrote:
Erik Hofman writes:
David Megginson wrote:
I agree strongly on namespaces -- they'll eliminate some of our MSVC
conflicts as well, especially if people avoid using global #defines
whenever possible. Do all of our target compilers now support them?
Erik Hofman wrote:
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but to my understanding namespaces are
like classes but without the overloading and such?
Namespaces are just namespaces. :)
Some languages call them packages or modules, but the idea is
really simple: a symbol (function, class, global
projects that span over
multiple files without clumsy #include in the class definition.
I vote for namespaces
-Fred
- Original Message -
From: David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] New SimGear Class
Erik Hofman wrote:
Hi,
Today i have taken some time to take a look at the SimGear code and
decided it might be time to create a new class definition.
I'm not sure this is the right time to discuss about it. But then again,
I always have the feeling it might not be the right time. ;-)
Bernie Bright writes:
Refactoring SimGear is probably a Good Thing since it has accumulated
some cruft over time and some areas need reworking. However I don't
think that having bogus top level classes is a good idea. Instead I
propose we use namespaces. Perhaps a top level SimGear
David Megginson wrote:
Bernie Bright writes:
Refactoring SimGear is probably a Good Thing since it has accumulated
some cruft over time and some areas need reworking. However I don't
think that having bogus top level classes is a good idea. Instead I
propose we use namespaces.
