1. Re: Modified Include System
Vincent wrote:
>
> Jason Gade wrote:
>
> > I suggest that anyone who writes a file that is intended to be included use
> > namespaces for files that *it* includes. Then it exports any functionality
> > with
> > it's own global routines if it needs to do that.
> >
> > Programmers cannot rely on moving a symbol over two levels of include files
> > without the possibility of a namespace clash. Therefore this is the best
> > workaround
> > for something that is unlikely to be changed.
> >
> > Yes, it means that older or unmaintained libraries will have to be changed
> > if
> > someone runs into a naming conflict.
> >
>
> That doesn't solve the problem with files with the same name. Using namespaces
> does not bypass the issue. Maybe you're talking about a whole different
> problem?
>
> > j.
>
>
> Regards,
> Vincent
Right. I'm thinking of two different problems. Sorry.
With the include naming issue, you'll just have to rename a file. Sucks, but...
The issue I'm mainly concerned about is covered here:
http://www.listfilter.com/cgi-bin/esearch.exu?thread=1&fromMonth=6&fromYear=8&toMonth=8&toYear=8&keywords=%22another+look+at+namespaces%22
I think the problems are related, that's why I've been discussing it.
--
"Any programming problem can be solved by adding a level of indirection."
--anonymous
"Any performance problem can be solved by removing a level of indirection."
--M. Haertel
j.
