Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> And namespaces can be closed and reopened. Classes must be contained within
> a
> single pair of braces.
>
> You can have :
>
> namespace foo {
> // C++ code
> }
> namespace bar {
> // C++ code
> }
> namespace foo {
> // C++ code
> }
Sounds good. I think namesp
r big projects that span over
multiple files without clumsy #include in the class definition.
I vote for namespaces
-Fred
- Original Message -
From: "David Megginson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightge
> Erik Hofman wrote:
> > Please correct me if I'm wrong, but to my understanding namespaces are
> > like classes but without the overloading and such?
>
> Namespaces are just namespaces. :)
>
> So I can (and did) write stuff like:
>
> namespace yasim { class Propeller { ... }; };
>
> without
Erik Hofman wrote:
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but to my understanding namespaces are
> like classes but without the overloading and such?
Namespaces are just namespaces. :)
Some languages call them "packages" or "modules", but the idea is
really simple: a symbol (function, class, global v
David Megginson wrote:
> Erik Hofman writes:
> > David Megginson wrote:
>
> > > I agree strongly on namespaces -- they'll eliminate some of our MSVC
> > > conflicts as well, especially if people avoid using global #defines
> > > whenever possible. Do all of our target compilers now support
Erik Hofman writes:
> David Megginson wrote:
> > I agree strongly on namespaces -- they'll eliminate some of our MSVC
> > conflicts as well, especially if people avoid using global #defines
> > whenever possible. Do all of our target compilers now support them?
>
>
> Please correct me i
Bernie Bright wrote:
> I've been using the Boost libraries (http://www.boost.org) for some time
> now and that is what they do. Portability is one of Boost's goals. I
> also wouldn't mind the opportunity to refactor the compiler
> configuration stuff similar to how Boost has done it.
This mi
David Megginson wrote:
> I agree strongly on namespaces -- they'll eliminate some of our MSVC
> conflicts as well, especially if people avoid using global #defines
> whenever possible. Do all of our target compilers now support them?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but to my understanding nam
Bernie Bright wrote:
>
> Refactoring SimGear is probably a Good Thing since it has accumulated
> some cruft over time and some areas need reworking. However I don't
> think that having bogus top level classes is a good idea. Instead I
> propose we use namespaces. Perhaps a top level SimGear
Andy Ross wrote:
>
> > I believe so, although some just ignore namespace declarations
> > (gcc-2.95!). My only guideline is Boost, it targets many the same
> > platforms we do (and some we don't).
>
> The gcc-2.95 I'm using (the one named something different, packaged by
> a distribution ven
Bernie Bright writes:
> David Megginson wrote:
> > Bernie Bright writes:
> > > Perhaps a top level SimGear namespace with second level
> > > namespaces corresponding to the major functional divisions, as
> > > you've outlined. I think we should eliminate the Misc group as
> > > well.
> >
David Megginson wrote:
>
> Bernie Bright writes:
>
> > Refactoring SimGear is probably a Good Thing since it has accumulated
> > some cruft over time and some areas need reworking. However I don't
> > think that having bogus top level classes is a good idea. Instead I
> > propose we use na
Bernie Bright writes:
> Refactoring SimGear is probably a Good Thing since it has accumulated
> some cruft over time and some areas need reworking. However I don't
> think that having bogus top level classes is a good idea. Instead I
> propose we use namespaces. Perhaps a top level SimGear
Erik Hofman wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Today i have taken some time to take a look at the SimGear code and
> decided it might be time to create a new class definition.
>
> I'm not sure this is the right time to discuss about it. But then again,
> I always have the feeling it might not be the right time
Hi,
Today i have taken some time to take a look at the SimGear code and
decided it might be time to create a new class definition.
I'm not sure this is the right time to discuss about it. But then again,
I always have the feeling it might not be the right time. ;-)
This is a definition which
15 matches
Mail list logo
