On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Peter Kasting <pkast...@chromium.org>wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote: > >> On May 15, 2012 10:53 AM, "Peter Kasting" <pkast...@chromium.org> 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 if we have conflicts? >> > Well, I guess we can do anything we want :). It might be nice to have a > consistent rule though (much like the current style rule is consistent, if > sometimes problematic). > That's a good point. On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Anders Carlsson <ander...@apple.com> wrote: > > On May 16, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Darin Adler <da...@apple.com> 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 talking with Anders > Carlsson about it. > > I've run into this and had to use the fully qualified WTF::bind in those > cases. > > 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 something in the standard library. A fair point especially since we don't use std functions / classes that often. 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). - Ryosuke
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
