Re: Sv: Namespaces (was: Memory allocators)

[Christian Reiniger <warewolf@mayn.de>]

Bjarke Hammersholt Roune wrote:

>We'd be getting ppBlah as pp::internal::pp:internal::ppBlah. Easy thing to
>do accidentally.

And easy for the compiler to detect.

>>That's what the planned iostream-like API of PFile is for. So we'll have a
>>procedural API and an object oriented one, and the user can use the one he
>>likes best.
>>
>That's a better solution, agreed. We aren't going to mirror the standard
>library stream classes, though, right?

I thought about deriving from them.

>>* C API declarations are in global namespace when used in C programs and in
>>the pp namespace when used in C++ programs. This is done by wrapping their
>>headers in
>> [...]
>>
>Do C functions loose their prefixes? Or do we have C stuff with prefixes,
>and C++ stuff without prefixes?

C with, C++ without. I don't know a better way.

>>* All internals are in the namespace pp::internal, and only have a prefix
>>indicating what part they belong to (f for PFile, s for PSound etc)
>>(FIX: is the part prefix really good? It makes things clearer, but looks
>>ugly. And name clashes shouldn't occur here anyway - IMHO it's even better
>>if a missing prefix tells us about two identical names)
>>
>Well, for the C++ stuff, I think we should lose the prefix altogether.

I tend to agree.


	Christian
-- 

Drive A: not responding...Formatting C: instead