Message-ID: <20010212160930.507.qmail@lauras.lt>
From: "Laurynas Biveinis" <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:09:30 +0200
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: namespace std and libstdc++ V3
Mail-Followup-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com


> I'm not sure we should continue committing changes to the headers before 
> we make those decisions, because that might mean waste of Stephen's time
> and efforts, in case those changes are incompatible with libstdc++ v3.
> (I assume that libstdc++ v3 will be released before DJGPP 2.04; if that's 
> not true, we could ignore libstdc++ v3 for now.)

I'd like to point out that currently default libstdc++-v3 header
strategy is c_std (C headers are included into default namespace), 
not c_shadow. And libstdc++ sources state that some day c_shadow
will become default. So it is WIP now, and this means that their
implementation details may change. I suggest asking in libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
first before relying on their header internal details.

> This became a major issue with the current attitude of the GCC 
> developers, not only wrt C++ headers.  However, I don't see how can we do 
> anything to avoid this danger, given that the GCC maintainers don't give 
> a * about our (or anyone else's) concerns.

GCC and libstdc++ maintainers are different people, so far they've been
helpful (althought always busy as well.). I seriously advise to ask in 
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org how this problem should be solved. 

Laurynas