Re: Proposal Review: Using C++ Namespace

[David N Bertoni/Cambridge/IBM]

Hi all,

I disagree.  For compatibility/legacy reasons, people often need to use
multiple versions of the parser at the same time.  This scheme would allow
this to happen without confusion, since the different versions of the
parser would be in different namespaces, and thus, would not violate the
one-definition rule.

Dave



                                                                                       
                                               
                      "Jason E.                                                        
                                               
                      Stewart"                 To:      [EMAIL PROTECTED]    
                                               
                      <jason@openinfor         cc:      [EMAIL PROTECTED], (bcc: David N 
Bertoni/Cambridge/IBM)                         
                      matics.com>              Subject: Re: Proposal Review: Using C++ 
Namespace                                      
                                                                                       
                                               
                      11/02/2002 12:07                                                 
                                               
                      PM                                                               
                                               
                      Please respond                                                   
                                               
                      to xerces-c-dev                                                  
                                               
                                                                                       
                                               



"Murray Cumming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Why would anyone want to use 2 versions of Xerces-C++ in one
> compilation? Nobody has needed to do it so far, so I don't see the need
> to complicate things by fixing a bug/request that does not yet exist.

I've never heard of needing two versions of the same code in the same
compilation.

jas.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]