Message-ID: <20010215131233.1016.qmail@lauras.lt>
From: "Laurynas Biveinis" <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:12:33 +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: <20010214152545 DOT 933 DOT qmail AT lauras DOT lt> <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010215130253 DOT 27892B-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.3.91.1010215130253.27892B-100000@is>; from eliz@is.elta.co.il on Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:03:13PM +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

On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:03:13PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > And why not to implement it once correctly (read: to be compatible with libc++)
> > later?
> 
> I was under an impression that this was impossible, since the exact
> details of the libstdc++'s implementation are not clear enough at this
> time.

But this is exactly the same I wanted to tell - fix headers when it is
clear how they should be fixed (i.e. libstdc++ v3.0 is released, or its
developers clearly describe, how this should be done).

Laurynas