Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #70404 > unrolled thread

I'd like to have unusing

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

Contents

  I'd like to have unusing Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-12-12 12:49 +0100
    Re: I'd like to have unusing "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2019-12-12 13:51 +0100
      Re: I'd like to have unusing Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-12 05:47 -0800
        Re: I'd like to have unusing "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2019-12-12 17:58 +0100
          Re: I'd like to have unusing Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-12 09:40 -0800
            Re: I'd like to have unusing "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2019-12-13 09:23 +0100
        Re: I'd like to have unusing "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2019-12-12 17:58 +0100
      Re: I'd like to have unusing boltar@nowhere.co.uk - 2019-12-12 16:23 +0000
      Re: I'd like to have unusing Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2019-12-25 13:19 -0500
        Re: I'd like to have unusing "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2019-12-25 20:09 +0100
          Re: I'd like to have unusing Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2019-12-25 16:37 -0500
            Re: I'd like to have unusing "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2019-12-25 22:56 +0100
              Re: I'd like to have unusing Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2019-12-25 17:06 -0500
                Re: I'd like to have unusing Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-25 14:14 -0800
                  Re: I'd like to have unusing Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2019-12-25 17:28 -0500
                    Re: I'd like to have unusing "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2019-12-26 00:49 +0100
                      Re: I'd like to have unusing Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2019-12-25 19:54 -0500
                        Re: I'd like to have unusing "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2019-12-26 03:53 +0100
                          Re: I'd like to have unusing Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2019-12-25 22:32 -0500
                        Re: I'd like to have unusing Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-26 03:01 -0800
                          Re: I'd like to have unusing Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-26 03:20 -0800
                            Re: I'd like to have unusing Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-12-27 11:24 -0500
                              Re: I'd like to have unusing Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-12-27 09:22 -0800
                                Re: I'd like to have unusing Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2020-01-02 23:47 -0500
                                  Re: I'd like to have unusing Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2020-01-02 23:46 -0800
                                    Re: I'd like to have unusing Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2020-01-04 23:46 -0500
                                  Re: I'd like to have unusing Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-01-04 18:43 -0500
                                    Re: I'd like to have unusing Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2020-01-04 23:55 -0500
    Re: I'd like to have unusing Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-12-12 18:29 +0000
      Re: I'd like to have unusing Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-12-12 18:34 +0000
        Re: I'd like to have unusing Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2019-12-12 11:17 -0800
      Re: I'd like to have unusing Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-12-12 19:40 +0100
        Re: I'd like to have unusing Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-12-12 19:56 +0000
          Re: I'd like to have unusing Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-12-13 06:35 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#70662

On Thursday, 26 December 2019 13:01:25 UTC+2, Öö Tiib  wrote:
> On Thursday, 26 December 2019 02:55:04 UTC+2, Pavel  wrote:
> > Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> > > On 25.12.2019 23:28, Pavel wrote:
> > > 
> > >> B. If an identifier starting with _ not followed by an uppercase letter
> > >> is used by C++ implementation, it should be used as a name in the global
> > >> namespace.
> > > 
> > > ... or namespace `std`.
> > *that* is what does not seem to follow from anything.
> 
> There standard has chosen to other way of reserving, the menace
> of undefined behavior when user touches namespace std in wrong
> way:
> "The behavior of a C++ program is undefined if it adds declarations
> or definitions to namespace std or to a namespace within namespace 
> std unless otherwise specified. A program may add a template
> specialization for any standard library template to namespace std
> only if the declaration depends on a user-defined type and the
> specialization meets the standard library requirements for the original
> template and is not explicitly prohibited."

Note that by your interpretation, Pavel, standard is violating itself:
<https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/functional/placeholders>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70687

On 12/26/19 6:20 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Thursday, 26 December 2019 13:01:25 UTC+2, Öö Tiib  wrote:
>> On Thursday, 26 December 2019 02:55:04 UTC+2, Pavel  wrote:
>>> Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>>> On 25.12.2019 23:28, Pavel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> B. If an identifier starting with _ not followed by an uppercase letter
>>>>> is used by C++ implementation, it should be used as a name in the global
>>>>> namespace.
>>>>
>>>> ... or namespace `std`.
>>> *that* is what does not seem to follow from anything.
>>
>> There standard has chosen to other way of reserving, the menace
>> of undefined behavior when user touches namespace std in wrong
>> way:
>> "The behavior of a C++ program is undefined if it adds declarations
>> or definitions to namespace std or to a namespace within namespace
>> std unless otherwise specified. A program may add a template
>> specialization for any standard library template to namespace std
>> only if the declaration depends on a user-defined type and the
>> specialization meets the standard library requirements for the original
>> template and is not explicitly prohibited."
> 
> Note that by your interpretation, Pavel, standard is violating itself:
> <https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/functional/placeholders>
> 

Those names are reserved for the Standard to use. There is absolutely 
nothing in the Standard that prohibit it from taking a particular name 
in that set and defining it for use by the user. In fact, that is one of 
the reason that in C, the 'true name' for the boolean type is _Bool, as 
that was a name that was reserved for the implementation, and thus 
should not legally have previously appeared in any user code, so no 
backwards breakage introducing it (many user applications had a type 
called bool defined in many different ways). It was only by including a 
specific header that the symbol bool got its now standard definition, so 
old programs could stay valid as they didn't include that header and new 
programs could include the header and get the nice name.

Note the words, "unless otherwised specified", That section you 
reference specifies a particular set of symbols and how they can be used.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70691

On Friday, 27 December 2019 18:24:12 UTC+2, Richard Damon  wrote:
> On 12/26/19 6:20 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Thursday, 26 December 2019 13:01:25 UTC+2, Öö Tiib  wrote:
> >> On Thursday, 26 December 2019 02:55:04 UTC+2, Pavel  wrote:
> >>> Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> >>>> On 25.12.2019 23:28, Pavel wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> B. If an identifier starting with _ not followed by an uppercase letter
> >>>>> is used by C++ implementation, it should be used as a name in the global
> >>>>> namespace.
> >>>>
> >>>> ... or namespace `std`.
> >>> *that* is what does not seem to follow from anything.
> >>
> >> There standard has chosen to other way of reserving, the menace
> >> of undefined behavior when user touches namespace std in wrong
> >> way:
> >> "The behavior of a C++ program is undefined if it adds declarations
> >> or definitions to namespace std or to a namespace within namespace
> >> std unless otherwise specified. A program may add a template
> >> specialization for any standard library template to namespace std
> >> only if the declaration depends on a user-defined type and the
> >> specialization meets the standard library requirements for the original
> >> template and is not explicitly prohibited."
> > 
> > Note that by your interpretation, Pavel, standard is violating itself:
> > <https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/functional/placeholders>
> > 
> 
> Those names are reserved for the Standard to use. 

Nope. *All* *and* *every* name, including but not limited to plain and
pure profanities with and without underlines anywhere, in namespace std 
or in namespaces within namespace std are reserved for the Implementation
to define or to declare by quoted above Word Of Standard. ;)

> There is absolutely 
> nothing in the Standard that prohibit it from taking a particular name 
> in that set and defining it for use by the user.

Sure, I totally disagree with interpretation of Paul. In fact the
placeholders I cited were as example of contradiction of his
claim B that those names may be only used by Implementation and
only in global namespace.

> In fact, that is one of 
> the reason that in C, the 'true name' for the boolean type is _Bool, as 
> that was a name that was reserved for the implementation, and thus 
> should not legally have previously appeared in any user code, so no 
> backwards breakage introducing it (many user applications had a type 
> called bool defined in many different ways). It was only by including a 
> specific header that the symbol bool got its now standard definition, so 
> old programs could stay valid as they didn't include that header and new 
> programs could include the header and get the nice name.

Yes but do not talk about what C does to those smug language lawyers of
C++ committee. Significant part of those would make the two languages
totally incompatible if only to give chance.

> Note the words, "unless otherwised specified", That section you 
> reference specifies a particular set of symbols and how they can be used.

What section? I quoted first paragraph of [namespace.std] from C++17.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70997

Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Friday, 27 December 2019 18:24:12 UTC+2, Richard Damon  wrote:
>> On 12/26/19 6:20 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 26 December 2019 13:01:25 UTC+2, Öö Tiib  wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 26 December 2019 02:55:04 UTC+2, Pavel  wrote:
>>>>> Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>>>>> On 25.12.2019 23:28, Pavel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> B. If an identifier starting with _ not followed by an uppercase letter
>>>>>>> is used by C++ implementation, it should be used as a name in the global
>>>>>>> namespace.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... or namespace `std`.
>>>>> *that* is what does not seem to follow from anything.
>>>>
>>>> There standard has chosen to other way of reserving, the menace
>>>> of undefined behavior when user touches namespace std in wrong
>>>> way:
>>>> "The behavior of a C++ program is undefined if it adds declarations
>>>> or definitions to namespace std or to a namespace within namespace
>>>> std unless otherwise specified. A program may add a template
>>>> specialization for any standard library template to namespace std
>>>> only if the declaration depends on a user-defined type and the
>>>> specialization meets the standard library requirements for the original
>>>> template and is not explicitly prohibited."
>>>
>>> Note that by your interpretation, Pavel, standard is violating itself:
>>> <https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/functional/placeholders>
>>>
>>
>> Those names are reserved for the Standard to use. 
> 
> Nope. *All* *and* *every* name, including but not limited to plain and
> pure profanities with and without underlines anywhere, in namespace std 
> or in namespaces within namespace std are reserved for the Implementation
> to define or to declare by quoted above Word Of Standard. ;)
> 
>> There is absolutely 
>> nothing in the Standard that prohibit it from taking a particular name 
>> in that set and defining it for use by the user.
> 
> Sure, I totally disagree with interpretation of Paul. In fact the
> placeholders I cited were as example of contradiction of his
> claim B that those names may be only used by Implementation and
> only in global namespace.
Sorry, I did not mean to be impolite, just bailed out earlier than saw your
follow-ups. Happy New Year, BTW.

Placeholders in std:: like _1 etc do seem to break (3.2) I cited. Should be a
defect in the Standard (surely not first and probably not last).

As for my opinion that "those names may be only used by Implementation and
only in global namespace" I deduce it from "and shall not be used otherwise".
Said strongly enough for me to refrain from using these ever (but I did not
anyway since the late 80s because compatibility with C mattered for my purposes
back then).

> 
>> In fact, that is one of 
>> the reason that in C, the 'true name' for the boolean type is _Bool, as 
>> that was a name that was reserved for the implementation, and thus 
>> should not legally have previously appeared in any user code, so no 
>> backwards breakage introducing it (many user applications had a type 
>> called bool defined in many different ways). It was only by including a 
>> specific header that the symbol bool got its now standard definition, so 
>> old programs could stay valid as they didn't include that header and new 
>> programs could include the header and get the nice name.
> 
> Yes but do not talk about what C does to those smug language lawyers of
> C++ committee. Significant part of those would make the two languages
> totally incompatible if only to give chance.
> 
>> Note the words, "unless otherwised specified", That section you 
>> reference specifies a particular set of symbols and how they can be used.
> 
> What section? I quoted first paragraph of [namespace.std] from C++17.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71003

On Friday, 3 January 2020 06:47:40 UTC+2, Pavel  wrote:
> Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Friday, 27 December 2019 18:24:12 UTC+2, Richard Damon  wrote:
> >> On 12/26/19 6:20 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 26 December 2019 13:01:25 UTC+2, Öö Tiib  wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, 26 December 2019 02:55:04 UTC+2, Pavel  wrote:
> >>>>> Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> >>>>>> On 25.12.2019 23:28, Pavel wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> B. If an identifier starting with _ not followed by an uppercase letter
> >>>>>>> is used by C++ implementation, it should be used as a name in the global
> >>>>>>> namespace.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ... or namespace `std`.
> >>>>> *that* is what does not seem to follow from anything.
> >>>>
> >>>> There standard has chosen to other way of reserving, the menace
> >>>> of undefined behavior when user touches namespace std in wrong
> >>>> way:
> >>>> "The behavior of a C++ program is undefined if it adds declarations
> >>>> or definitions to namespace std or to a namespace within namespace
> >>>> std unless otherwise specified. A program may add a template
> >>>> specialization for any standard library template to namespace std
> >>>> only if the declaration depends on a user-defined type and the
> >>>> specialization meets the standard library requirements for the original
> >>>> template and is not explicitly prohibited."
> >>>
> >>> Note that by your interpretation, Pavel, standard is violating itself:
> >>> <https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/functional/placeholders>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Those names are reserved for the Standard to use. 
> > 
> > Nope. *All* *and* *every* name, including but not limited to plain and
> > pure profanities with and without underlines anywhere, in namespace std 
> > or in namespaces within namespace std are reserved for the Implementation
> > to define or to declare by quoted above Word Of Standard. ;)
> > 
> >> There is absolutely 
> >> nothing in the Standard that prohibit it from taking a particular name 
> >> in that set and defining it for use by the user.
> > 
> > Sure, I totally disagree with interpretation of Paul. In fact the
> > placeholders I cited were as example of contradiction of his
> > claim B that those names may be only used by Implementation and
> > only in global namespace.
> Sorry, I did not mean to be impolite, just bailed out earlier than saw your
> follow-ups. Happy New Year, BTW.

Happy new year to you too. And happy name change from Paul to Pavel.
I had odd dream today that someone had changed my name. So I woke up
and looked into group and noticed that my name was same but yours had
changed.

> Placeholders in std:: like _1 etc do seem to break (3.2) I cited. Should be a
> defect in the Standard (surely not first and probably not last).

If you think it is defect then post defect report to isocpp groups.
Language lawyers there will attempt to shred you into threads or
deal with that ambiguity in some other manner but on any case it
will be interesting experience.
<https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-discussion>

> As for my opinion that "those names may be only used by Implementation and
> only in global namespace" I deduce it from "and shall not be used otherwise".
> Said strongly enough for me to refrain from using these ever (but I did not
> anyway since the late 80s because compatibility with C mattered for my
> purposes back then).

What I posted was interpretation how most people had interpreted it.
I myself simply dislike somewhat names with underscores and so I
do not use these anyway. Only place where I use underscore is
that I tend to mark private data members with trailing underscore
to make access of those to stand out.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71133

Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Friday, 3 January 2020 06:47:40 UTC+2, Pavel  wrote:
>> Öö Tiib wrote:
>>> On Friday, 27 December 2019 18:24:12 UTC+2, Richard Damon  wrote:
>>>> On 12/26/19 6:20 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 26 December 2019 13:01:25 UTC+2, Öö Tiib  wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, 26 December 2019 02:55:04 UTC+2, Pavel  wrote:
>>>>>>> Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 25.12.2019 23:28, Pavel wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> B. If an identifier starting with _ not followed by an uppercase letter
>>>>>>>>> is used by C++ implementation, it should be used as a name in the global
>>>>>>>>> namespace.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ... or namespace `std`.
>>>>>>> *that* is what does not seem to follow from anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There standard has chosen to other way of reserving, the menace
>>>>>> of undefined behavior when user touches namespace std in wrong
>>>>>> way:
>>>>>> "The behavior of a C++ program is undefined if it adds declarations
>>>>>> or definitions to namespace std or to a namespace within namespace
>>>>>> std unless otherwise specified. A program may add a template
>>>>>> specialization for any standard library template to namespace std
>>>>>> only if the declaration depends on a user-defined type and the
>>>>>> specialization meets the standard library requirements for the original
>>>>>> template and is not explicitly prohibited."
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that by your interpretation, Pavel, standard is violating itself:
>>>>> <https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/functional/placeholders>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Those names are reserved for the Standard to use. 
>>>
>>> Nope. *All* *and* *every* name, including but not limited to plain and
>>> pure profanities with and without underlines anywhere, in namespace std 
>>> or in namespaces within namespace std are reserved for the Implementation
>>> to define or to declare by quoted above Word Of Standard. ;)
>>>
>>>> There is absolutely 
>>>> nothing in the Standard that prohibit it from taking a particular name 
>>>> in that set and defining it for use by the user.
>>>
>>> Sure, I totally disagree with interpretation of Paul. In fact the
>>> placeholders I cited were as example of contradiction of his
>>> claim B that those names may be only used by Implementation and
>>> only in global namespace.
>> Sorry, I did not mean to be impolite, just bailed out earlier than saw your
>> follow-ups. Happy New Year, BTW.
> 
> Happy new year to you too. And happy name change from Paul to Pavel.
> I had odd dream today that someone had changed my name. So I woke up
> and looked into group and noticed that my name was same but yours had
> changed.
My name has always been Pavel. I can see you answered to me (at least my
news reader shows "Pavel") but called me Paul (I have no problem going
for Paul though because it is the proper translation of Pavel to English
so no worry).
> 
>> Placeholders in std:: like _1 etc do seem to break (3.2) I cited. Should be a
>> defect in the Standard (surely not first and probably not last).
> 
> If you think it is defect then post defect report to isocpp groups.
> Language lawyers there will attempt to shred you into threads or
> deal with that ambiguity in some other manner but on any case it
> will be interesting experience.
> <https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-discussion>
>
Maybe later. This does not seem of practical importance. I might ask my
colleague who is active on the committee but he probably won't be
interested either (but we will see).
>> As for my opinion that "those names may be only used by Implementation and
>> only in global namespace" I deduce it from "and shall not be used otherwise".
>> Said strongly enough for me to refrain from using these ever (but I did not
>> anyway since the late 80s because compatibility with C mattered for my
>> purposes back then).
> 
> What I posted was interpretation how most people had interpreted it.
> I myself simply dislike somewhat names with underscores and so I
> do not use these anyway. Only place where I use underscore is
> that I tend to mark private data members with trailing underscore
> to make access of those to stand out.
Same here.
>  
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71121

On 1/2/20 11:47 PM, Pavel wrote:
> As for my opinion that "those names may be only used by Implementation and
> only in global namespace" I deduce it from "and shall not be used otherwise".
> Said strongly enough for me to refrain from using these ever (but I did not
> anyway since the late 80s because compatibility with C mattered for my purposes
> back then).

That phrase means that those names are reserved for the implementation 
or the standard to give a meaning to. Where one of these provides a 
documented usage, the program is allowed to use that usage.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71135

Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/2/20 11:47 PM, Pavel wrote:
>> As for my opinion that "those names may be only used by Implementation
>> and
>> only in global namespace" I deduce it from "and shall not be used
>> otherwise".
>> Said strongly enough for me to refrain from using these ever (but I
>> did not
>> anyway since the late 80s because compatibility with C mattered for my
>> purposes
>> back then).
> 
> That phrase means that those names are reserved for the implementation
> or the standard to give a meaning to. Where one of these provides a
> documented usage, the program is allowed to use that usage.
Sorry, I should have said "enough for me to refrain from
declaring/defining these ever" as per the original controversy. Of
course I used those that were provided by the implementation (attribute
names and gcc built-ins come to mind).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70427

On 12/12/2019 11:49, Bonita Montero wrote:
> In a header I'm fixed to write the std::-prefixes since I can't use
> "using namespacee std" because this would be against the exepectations
> of those including the header.
> So I had a simple idea: with every "using namespace xxx" an counter for
> the namespace xxx would be incremented and at the end of block where the
> prefixes where used implicitly there would be a new "unusing"-directive
> that derements the counter and when it becomes zero, the implicit
> attachment to symbols is disabled.

Worst. Idea. Ever.

/Flibble

-- 
"Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin

“You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais

“I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” – Ricky Gervais

"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Byrne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70428

On 12/12/2019 18:29, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 12/12/2019 11:49, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> In a header I'm fixed to write the std::-prefixes since I can't use
>> "using namespacee std" because this would be against the exepectations
>> of those including the header.
>> So I had a simple idea: with every "using namespace xxx" an counter for
>> the namespace xxx would be incremented and at the end of block where the
>> prefixes where used implicitly there would be a new "unusing"-directive
>> that derements the counter and when it becomes zero, the implicit
>> attachment to symbols is disabled.
> 
> Worst. Idea. Ever.

What would be a good idea tho would be the following feature:

namespace neogfx
{
	// foo

	namespace ::std
	{
		// stuff you want to specialize in std
	}

	// bar
}

so we don't have to write:

namespace neogfx
{
	// foo
}

namespace std
{
	// stuff you want to specialize in std
}

namespace neogfx
{
	// bar
}

/Flibble

-- 
"Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin

“You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais

“I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” – Ricky Gervais

"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Byrne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70430

On Thursday, December 12, 2019 at 1:34:37 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
> 
> What would be a good idea tho would be the following feature:
> 
> namespace neogfx
> {
> 	// foo
> 
> 	namespace ::std
> 	{
> 		// stuff you want to specialize in std
> 	}
> 
> 	// bar
> }
> 
> so we don't have to write:
> 
> namespace neogfx
> {
> 	// foo
> }
> 
> namespace std
> {
> 	// stuff you want to specialize in std
> }
> 
> namespace neogfx
> {
> 	// bar
> }
> 
Totally agree. Especially for the case where something like the above has to
be wrapped in another namespace.

Daniel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70429

>> In a header I'm fixed to write the std::-prefixes since I can't use
>> "using namespacee std" because this would be against the exepectations
>> of those including the header.
>> So I had a simple idea: with every "using namespace xxx" an counter for
>> the namespace xxx would be incremented and at the end of block where the
>> prefixes where used implicitly there would be a new "unusing"-directive
>> that derements the counter and when it becomes zero, the implicit
>> attachment to symbols is disabled.

> Worst. Idea. Ever.

No, very good idea.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70431

On 12/12/2019 18:40, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>> In a header I'm fixed to write the std::-prefixes since I can't use
>>> "using namespacee std" because this would be against the exepectations
>>> of those including the header.
>>> So I had a simple idea: with every "using namespace xxx" an counter for
>>> the namespace xxx would be incremented and at the end of block where the
>>> prefixes where used implicitly there would be a new "unusing"-directive
>>> that derements the counter and when it becomes zero, the implicit
>>> attachment to symbols is disabled.
> 
>> Worst. Idea. Ever.
> 
> No, very good idea.

In your opinion; unfortunately you haven't thought through the implications of what you are suggesting.  It is a *really* bad idea.

/Flibble

-- 
"Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin

“You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais

“I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” – Ricky Gervais

"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Byrne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70432

>> No, very good idea.

> In your opinion; unfortunately you haven't thought through the 
> implications of what you are suggesting.  It is a *really* bad idea.

Then tell me the implications.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web