Marc Glisse writes:
On Sat, 29 Jun 2013, Sam Varshavchik wrote:Is there any interest in moving all the C++ bindings into their own namespace, say gnu::mp?Vaguely. Preferably at the same time as some other ABI-breaking changes.This is popular with many C++ dev libraries, like boost, for example.There are several advantages with doing that; mainly reducing the risk of clashing with application's own symbols, or even with symbols from other libraries that an app also links to.The risk of clashing is very low. We currently use the old C namespacing technique of giving all names an application-specific prefix (plus we illegally put most names in the implementation namespace). Did you hit a particular issue or are you just suggesting it because it sounds good?
I was pondering including gmp internally as part of another C++ library, that has its own vanity namespace; where I follow the principle of not adding its symbols to the global namespace; I think that should be entirely for client apps, so I like not to meddle therer.
Or, for 100% source backwards compatibility, rename gmpxx.h to something else, and have it declare everything in gnu::mp, and replace gmpxx.h with a stub that includes the real file, and provides the three typedefs.I'd probably import the names to the global namespace by default anyway, so no point complicating things too much.
That'll work too; as long as it's possible to avoid that, and possible to import only the library-specific namespace.
pgpXaplfNod19.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ gmp-devel mailing list gmp-devel@gmplib.org http://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-devel
