Re: Modified Include System
- Posted by Jason Gade <jaygade at yahoo.com> Feb 08, 2006
- 454 views
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.