Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.com> writes:I will admit that none of the projects I referred to below used C++
>On 04/17/12 02:06 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Miles Bader<mi...@gnu.org> writes:
>>> Pavel<pauldontspamt...@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> writes:
>>>>> Real namespaces are better than "glued on" adhoc namespaces because
>>>>> they allow _either_ explicit references or implicit [with "using"]
>>>>> references, and that choice is in the hands of the user [of the
>>>>> namespace] where it belongs. The appropriate choice can differ,
>>>>> for the same namespace, depending on the context of the use.
>>>> Well, because "explicit" references are possible without namespaces,
>>> That doesn't mean one always has to use that feature. However the
>>>> By mentioning of "write-only" code in my original answer I was trying
>>> "More explicit" names are not always "more readable," and can often be
>> I'd disagree with this. Without namespaces, an unqualified variable
>Not really, consider code with lots of io. Does us look clearer with
I/O. Nor did any of them use STL (for performance reasons), even tho
STL was created by one of my employers.
About half before, the other half after. However, since none of them
>Provided your naming conventions differ for namespaces and types (all
>> None of the C++ projects that I've worked on (two operating systems,
>Where these recent projects? It took a while for namespaces to be
used STL (see above), namespaces weren't that useful.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.