«

I was advised in a recent thread that, because one of the compilers that I
use does not support 'namespace', I should not use this group but ask
elsewhere; perhaps comp.lang.c++.but_without_namespace'? What's the general
consensus?

Tim

Tim Clacy wrote:
> I was advised in a recent thread that, because one of the compilers
> that I use does not support 'namespace', I should not use this group
> but ask elsewhere; perhaps comp.lang.c++.but_without_namespace'?
> What's the general consensus?

We talk about everything that is mentioned in the C++ standard, nothing
more, nothing less. If your compiler does not support namespaces advice
about how to circumvent that falls out of the domain of Standard C++ and
into the domain of compiler-specific issues, which are not topical here.
Instead you should ask in a group where your compiler is topical.

--
Unforgiven

"Most people make generalisations"
Freek de Jonge

Unforgiven wrote:
> Tim Clacy wrote:
>> I was advised in a recent thread that, because one of the compilers
>> that I use does not support 'namespace', I should not use this group
>> but ask elsewhere; perhaps comp.lang.c++.but_without_namespace'?
>> What's the general consensus?
>
> We talk about everything that is mentioned in the C++ standard,

THE C++ standard? My understanding is that even VC 7.0 and gcc aren't
compliant in all respects. Are you suggesting that this group is purely for
abstract, theoretical language issues and not practical issues with actual
language implementations?

> nothing more, nothing less. If your compiler does not support
> namespaces advice about how to circumvent that falls out of the
> domain of Standard C++ and into the domain of compiler-specific
> issues, which are not topical here. Instead you should ask in a group
> where your compiler is topical.

Unforgivable wrote:
> If your compiler does not support namespaces advice about how
> to circumvent that falls out of the domain of Standard C++ and
> into the domain of compiler-specific issues

I've lost count of the number of times I've read advice to avoid
'namespace', and yet here you are suggesting that to ask a question here
related to a workaround for a compiler that doesn't support namespace is
inappropriate; effectively, you are saying 'don't use namespace', but if you
need to use 'namespace' and you're compiler doesn't support it, then ask
elsewhere

Tim Clacy wrote:
> Unforgivable wrote:
>> If your compiler does not support namespaces advice about how
>> to circumvent that falls out of the domain of Standard C++ and
>> into the domain of compiler-specific issues
>
> I've lost count of the number of times I've read advice to avoid
> 'namespace', and yet here you are suggesting that to ask a question
> here related to a workaround for a compiler that doesn't support
> namespace is inappropriate; effectively, you are saying 'don't use
> namespace', but if you need to use 'namespace' and you're compiler
> doesn't support it, then ask elsewhere

I have never said 'don't use namespace'. I'd also say that if you *need* to
use namespace and your compiler doesn't support it, you need a different
compiler. ^_^

--
Unforgiven

"Most people make generalisations"
Freek de Jonge

Tim Clacy wrote:
> Unforgiven wrote:
>> Tim Clacy wrote:
>>> I was advised in a recent thread that, because one of the compilers
>>> that I use does not support 'namespace', I should not use this group
>>> but ask elsewhere; perhaps comp.lang.c++.but_without_namespace'?
>>> What's the general consensus?
>>
>> We talk about everything that is mentioned in the C++ standard,
>
> THE C++ standard? My understanding is that even VC 7.0 and gcc aren't
> compliant in all respects. Are you suggesting that this group is
> purely for abstract, theoretical language issues and not practical
> issues with actual language implementations?

VC7.1 comes pretty close in terms of standards-compliance (although it has
quite a few non-standard extensions), so does Comeau. But you are basically
right with your statements. We do not discuss any specific implementation,
but C++ 'as it should be'. So if you have issues that are specific to a
certain compiler, and not to C++ as a language, this isn't the place for
them. The only exception of course is when you have a question of the sort
'This doesn't compile in my compiler, should it according to the standard or
am I doing something wrong?'

--
Unforgiven

"Most people make generalisations"
Freek de Jonge

Unforgiven wrote:
> Tim Clacy wrote:
>> Unforgivable wrote:
>>> If your compiler does not support namespaces advice about how
>>> to circumvent that falls out of the domain of Standard C++ and
>>> into the domain of compiler-specific issues
>>
>> I've lost count of the number of times I've read advice to avoid
>> 'namespace', and yet here you are suggesting that to ask a question
>> here related to a workaround for a compiler that doesn't support
>> namespace is inappropriate; effectively, you are saying 'don't use
>> namespace', but if you need to use 'namespace' and you're compiler
>> doesn't support it, then ask elsewhere
>
> I have never said 'don't use namespace'. I'd also say that if you
> *need* to use namespace and your compiler doesn't support it, you
> need a different compiler. ^_^

I don't know where you're from, but you should come visit Earth some time;
it's an awful place where, sometimes, you have no choice but to work with
tools that are flawed. I very much like the sound of your world though; how
do you get there? Do you do any commercial development there or is it purely
academic?

Unforgiven wrote:
> Tim Clacy wrote:
>> Unforgiven wrote:
>>> Tim Clacy wrote:
>>>> I was advised in a recent thread that, because one of the compilers
>>>> that I use does not support 'namespace', I should not use this
>>>> group but ask elsewhere; perhaps
>>>> comp.lang.c++.but_without_namespace'?
>>>> What's the general consensus?
>>>
>>> We talk about everything that is mentioned in the C++ standard,
>>
>> THE C++ standard? My understanding is that even VC 7.0 and gcc aren't
>> compliant in all respects. Are you suggesting that this group is
>> purely for abstract, theoretical language issues and not practical
>> issues with actual language implementations?
>
> VC7.1 comes pretty close in terms of standards-compliance (although
> it has quite a few non-standard extensions), so does Comeau. But you
> are basically right with your statements. We do not discuss any
> specific implementation, but C++ 'as it should be'. So if you have
> issues that are specific to a certain compiler, and not to C++ as a
> language, this isn't the place for them. The only exception of course
> is when you have a question of the sort 'This doesn't compile in my
> compiler, should it according to the standard or am I doing something
> wrong?'

VC7.1 is so new the ink is still wet on the boxes. If you want to limit
discussion here to those using compilers that are 100% bang-up to date with
the latest language hacks, I think you'll be talking to yourself; which,
perhaps, is what you would prefer?

osmium wrote:
> Tim Clacy writes:
>
>>> We talk about everything that is mentioned in the C++ standard,
>>
>> THE C++ standard? My understanding is that even VC 7.0 and gcc aren't
>> compliant in all respects. Are you suggesting that this group is
>> purely for abstract, theoretical language issues and not practical
>> issues with actual language implementations?
>
> As I see it, discussion is limited to the latest best effort of the
> major compilers, rather than to the standard. The major out standing
> issue is templated code and how object files magically appear. But
> there may be some wiggle room specifically included in the standard
> on that issue. Whether there is official wiggle room or not, there
> is a Gentlemen's Agreement that some things are OK and some are not.
> After immersion in the culture for a while, you will kind of absorb,
> by osmosis or something, what the rules really are.
>
> I looked at your other post you refer to. The battle you are
> fighting is that all old compilers were supposed to have been put in
> a bonfire and burned when the standard was approved. You appear to
> have one that escaped destruction. Think smallpox.

osmium,

I don't think I'm the only one in the battle; there are millions of us.
Forums like this are our refuge; it bites hard if we're not let in because
the generals don't supply us with regulation shoe-laces

Tim Clacy writes:

> > We talk about everything that is mentioned in the C++ standard,
>
> THE C++ standard? My understanding is that even VC 7.0 and gcc aren't
> compliant in all respects. Are you suggesting that this group is purely
for
> abstract, theoretical language issues and not practical issues with actual
> language implementations?

As I see it, discussion is limited to the latest best effort of the major
compilers, rather than to the standard. The major out standing issue is
templated code and how object files magically appear. But there may be some
wiggle room specifically included in the standard on that issue. Whether
there is official wiggle room or not, there is a Gentlemen's Agreement that
some things are OK and some are not. After immersion in the culture for a
while, you will kind of absorb, by osmosis or something, what the rules
really are.

I looked at your other post you refer to. The battle you are fighting is
that all old compilers were supposed to have been put in a bonfire and
burned when the standard was approved. You appear to have one that escaped
destruction. Think smallpox.