https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24537
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24537
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan W
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
--- 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|UNCON
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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 l
--- 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 thi
