Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:29:36 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: "Stephen Silver" <djgpp AT argentum DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
Message-Id: <2110-Sat10Feb2001092936+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.6
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <000b01c092d0$4b96c9c0$afe4883e@oemcomputer>
	(djgpp AT argentum DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk)
Subject: Re: namespace std and libstdc++ V3
References:  <000b01c092d0$4b96c9c0$afe4883e AT oemcomputer>
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

> From: "Stephen Silver" <djgpp AT argentum DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
> Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 19:41:25 -0000
> 
> In order to allow my namespace std patches to work with the libstdc++ V3
> wrappers, I propose the following changes.

Is it possible first to outline what libstdc++ v3 does with its
wrappers?

For example, does the installation of libstdc++ headers change the
library's system headers in any way?  Are we up against the invasive
nature of GCC again?

It is also not clear to me whether installing the libstdc++ headers
automatically means that the system C headers are wrapped with its
wrappers, even if the program includes stdio.h, not cstdio.

> Is this idea acceptable?

I don't see anything wrong with this idea, but I'd like to understand
the libstdc++ effects a bit better, before we decide.

> If so, what should the include file be called?

I'm not good in inventing names, so I'll let others make suggestions.