I'm interested in learning the existing convention, not reasons to prefer one or another.
- Ryosuke On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:50 PM, John Knottenbelt <[email protected]>wrote: > I would recommend wrapping such classes in an anonymous namespace to avoid > surprising link errors due to unintentional name collision. Such problems > can also be difficult to spot at first as sometimes the linker "just" works > and then you get a seg fault sometime later. > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <[email protected]> wrote: > >> How about classes that are only used in one cpp file? Should we be >> wrapping those in an anonymous namespace? >> >> - Ryosuke >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Darin Adler <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> The guideline is not to disallow anonymous namespaces. >>> >>> It’s to prefer “static” over anonymous namespaces when either one would >>> work. >>> >>> Debugging tools on at least some of the platforms work better with >>> functions that are given internal linkage by using the “static” keyword >>> rather than functions that are inside anonymous namespaces. >>> >>> On the other hand, anonymous namespaces are a more powerful tool that can >>> do more than the “static” keyword can. >>> >>> -- Darin >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> webkit-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev >> >> >
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
