* Sam Varshavchik <mr...@courier-mta.com> [Jun 30. 2013 08:13]: > Is there any interest in moving all the C++ bindings into their own > namespace, say gnu::mp? >
I wonder why not just gmp:: ? > 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. > > I can prepare a patch to do that, if there's interest. > > Compatibility with existing code is trivial. Either provide a > separate file that existing code can include, that contains a grand > total of three typedefs: > > typedef gnu::mp::mpz_class mpz_class; > typedef gnu::mp::mpf_class mpf_class; > typedef gnu::mp::mpq_class mpq_class; As just said in another email, 'using::xyz_class' instead of these 'typedef's appears preferable. > > 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. > Best, jj > _______________________________________________ > gmp-devel mailing list > gmp-devel@gmplib.org > http://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-devel _______________________________________________ gmp-devel mailing list gmp-devel@gmplib.org http://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-devel
