Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 09:23:58 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Stephen Silver <djgpp AT argentum DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: namespace std
In-Reply-To: <002e01c078f2$62454720$ed06893e@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010108091954.4690J-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Stephen Silver wrote:

> Note that the same temporary macro can (and almost certainly should) be
> used for each <c*> header.  (Question: What naming convention is used for
> DJGPP macros?  Is __dj_no_hoist_ acceptable?  Or __dj_via_cplusplus_header_?

I think both are acceptable, but perhaps others think otherwise.

> #ifdef __cplusplus
> namespace std {
> extern "C" {
> #endif

Question: will this compile with the current C and C++ compilers?

> #if !defined(__dj_no_hoist_) && !defined(__dj_ENFORCE_ANSI_FREESTANDING)
> 
> // hoist all standard foo.h symbols here

Please explain to the uninitiated what does ``hoisting'' do.  An example 
would be nice.

> I'm assuming that non-standard symbols get the same treatment as
> standard symbols with respect to namespace std, as this seems least
> likely to cause confusion.

Yes.

> PS.  One of the 18 headers common to C and C++ is missing altogether
> from DJGPP 2.03.  Here's all that is needed for <iso646.h>:

Yes, DJGPP doesn't really support the ISO amendments to C89.