Message-ID: <20010214152545.933.qmail@lauras.lt>
From: "Laurynas Biveinis" <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 17:25:45 +0200
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: namespace std and libstdc++ V3
Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>,
	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
References: <20010213155728 DOT 246 DOT qmail AT lauras DOT lt> <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010214090927 DOT 9705B-100000 AT is>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010214090927.9705B-100000@is>; from eliz@is.elta.co.il on Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 09:09:47AM +0200
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


> Would it make sense to ask Stephen to continue sending changes for the
> headers and commit them, and leave the issue of libstdc++ interaction
> for later?  Backing up changes is easy with CVS, if we need to do that
> later.

And why not to implement it once correctly (read: to be compatible with libc++)
later?

Laurynas