On May 17, 2012, at 12:33 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> It appears to me using fully qualified names (e.g. std::max(~) at call site)
> is far superior to using directive for individual symbols (e.g. using
> std::max).
>
> It sounds in gener
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> It appears to me using fully qualified names (e.g. std::max(~) at call
> site) is far superior to using directive for individual symbols (e.g. using
> std::max).
>
It sounds in general like a number of people have been in favor of this,
and
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Peter Kasting wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>
>> On May 15, 2012 10:53 AM, "Peter Kasting" wrote:
>> > Given how little of std:: we actually use (since WTF is used instead
>> for most things), what about just explicitly qualifyin
On May 16, 2012, at 12:47 PM, James Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Anders Carlsson wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I don't think we really need using directives for the std namespace -
>> the fully qualified name is short enough and I like the additional clarity
>> that we're calling so
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Anders Carlsson wrote:
>
> On May 16, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Darin Adler wrote:
>
> > On May 16, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> >
> >> there is another conflict which is entirely our own fault. It is
> between WTF::bind and the new std::bind from C++
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Anders Carlsson wrote:
>
> On May 16, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Darin Adler wrote:
>
> > On May 16, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> >
> >> there is another conflict which is entirely our own fault. It is
> between WTF::bind and the new std::bind from C++
On May 16, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Darin Adler wrote:
> On May 16, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
>
>> there is another conflict which is entirely our own fault. It is between
>> WTF::bind and the new std::bind from C++11
>
> We should find a good solution for this. I’d suggest talk
16.05.2012, в 9:20, Allan Sandfeld Jensen написал(а):
> We can work around issues like this, but I would still prefer if we advised
> against 'using namespace std', as seen even more clearly in the 'bind' case,
> it can easily cause problems when upgrading standard libraries or compilers.
Havi
On May 16, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> there is another conflict which is entirely our own fault. It is between
> WTF::bind and the new std::bind from C++11
We should find a good solution for this. I’d suggest talking with Anders
Carlsson about it.
-- Darin
___
On Wednesday 16 May 2012, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 May 2012, Darin Adler wrote:
> > On May 15, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> > > The conflict is between isinf, isnan and std::isinf and std::isnan, but
> > > the conflict only exists in C++11 when constexpr ver
On Tuesday 15 May 2012, Darin Adler wrote:
> On May 15, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> > The conflict is between isinf, isnan and std::isinf and std::isnan, but
> > the conflict only exists in C++11 when constexpr versions are
> > introduced.
>
> We should try harder to come up
On Tuesday 15 May 2012, Darin Adler wrote:
> On May 15, 2012, at 5:48 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> > To me it seems like an odd practice, so I would like to ask what original
> > rationale behind that style guideline is
>
> Adding a list of using declarations like "using std::min" to the top
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On May 15, 2012 10:53 AM, "Peter Kasting" wrote:
> > Given how little of std:: we actually use (since WTF is used instead for
> most things), what about just explicitly qualifying usages with std::
> directly?
>
> Can we do that if and only
On May 15, 2012 10:53 AM, "Peter Kasting" wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Darin Adler wrote:
>>
>> On May 15, 2012, at 5:48 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
>>
>> > To me it seems like an odd practice, so I would like to ask what
original rationale behind that style guideline is
>>
>> A
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Darin Adler wrote:
> On May 15, 2012, at 5:48 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
>
> > To me it seems like an odd practice, so I would like to ask what
> original rationale behind that style guideline is
>
> Adding a list of using declarations like "using std::min"
On May 15, 2012, at 5:48 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> To me it seems like an odd practice, so I would like to ask what original
> rationale behind that style guideline is
Adding a list of using declarations like "using std::min" to the top of each
source file would give us another ongoing
Hello webkit-dev
I would like to bring up an issue in the style guide that I have run into and
find a little odd.
In my recent patch to compile WebKit using C++11 and GCC, I had to resolve a
name conflict between global and std namespace. To do this you have to avoid
expanding the full std nam
17 matches
Mail list logo
