On 31/05/19 11:36 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 29/05/19 21:00 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
These using-declarations appear to have been added for simplicity when
moving the non-standard extensions from namespace std to namespace
__gnu_cxx. Dumping all these names into namespace __gnu_cxx al
On 29/05/19 21:00 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
These using-declarations appear to have been added for simplicity when
moving the non-standard extensions from namespace std to namespace
__gnu_cxx. Dumping all these names into namespace __gnu_cxx allows
uses like __gnu_cxx::size_t and __gnu_cxx::p
Concur
Ville Voutilainen writes:
> On Wed, 29 May 2019 at 23:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> Does anybody think we should keep __gnu_cxx::size_t,
>> __gnu_cxx::input_iterator_tag, __gnu_cxx::vector, __gnu_cxx::pair etc.
>> or should I go ahead and commit this?
>
> +1 go ahead.
On Wed, 29 May 2019 at 23:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Does anybody think we should keep __gnu_cxx::size_t,
> __gnu_cxx::input_iterator_tag, __gnu_cxx::vector, __gnu_cxx::pair etc.
> or should I go ahead and commit this?
+1 go ahead.
These using-declarations appear to have been added for simplicity when
moving the non-standard extensions from namespace std to namespace
__gnu_cxx. Dumping all these names into namespace __gnu_cxx allows
uses like __gnu_cxx::size_t and __gnu_cxx::pair, which serve no useful
purpose, but allows cr
