Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:25:29 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Stephen Silver <djgpp AT argentum DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
cc: DJGPP Workers <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: namespace std and libstdc++ V3
In-Reply-To: <002001c0952e$bbcecb60$4358893e@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010213092206.25782I@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Stephen Silver wrote:

> The c_std option doesn't put the standard functions (or anything else)
> in namespace std if the user includes <*.h> instead of <c*>.  It was
> this sort of incorrect behaviour that I was trying to avoid.

Can we have the cake and eat it, too?  That is, can we leave the <c*> 
headers up to libstdc++ (after all, they are theirs to begin with) and 
fix only the <*.h> headers which come with DJGPP?

Is that what your latest suggestion based on looking into libstdc++ was 
trying to do?

> If the ultimate aim is to use the c_shadow headers, then there is
> not much point is using my namespace std patches

Please explain why.  Are these two goals somehow incompatible, even if we 
leave the <c*> headers alone?