Message-ID: <20010212204049.1165.qmail@lauras.lt>
From: "Laurynas Biveinis" <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:40:48 +0200
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: namespace std and libstdc++ V3
Mail-Followup-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
References: <20010212160930 DOT 507 DOT qmail AT lauras DOT lt> <2110-Mon12Feb2001210139+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <20010212191413 DOT 442 DOT qmail AT lauras DOT lt> <5567-Mon12Feb2001221842+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i
In-Reply-To: <5567-Mon12Feb2001221842+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>; from eliz@is.elta.co.il on Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 10:18:42PM +0200
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

> Then Stephen misunderstood what the libstdc++ wrappers do?  Or did he
> use a stale version? 

No, he is right. Re-read my previous posts.

There are three C header strategies implemented in libstdc++-v3:
1) c. This one does nothing - it leaves headers as is, like in V2.
2) c_std. This one is default for now. It includes C headers in 
global namespace and pulls standard functions into std namespace.
3) c_shadow. This is WIP and is intended to become default in future.
And this is the one Stephen was talking about - namespace _C_legacy,
etc.

Laurynas