From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29753 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2012 21:34:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 29633 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jul 2012 21:34:53 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-lb0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-lb0-f175.google.com) (209.85.217.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:34:39 +0000 Received: by lbol5 with SMTP id l5so913481lbo.20 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:34:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.43.135 with SMTP id w7mr21075245lbl.48.1341956077976; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:34:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.27.228 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:34:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4FFADA23.6050805@redhat.com> References: <4FFADA23.6050805@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:34:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: G++ namespace association extension From: Jonathan Wakely To: Jason Merrill Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=e0cb4efe2ab854fe5404c4807f8d Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-07/txt/msg00387.txt.bz2 --e0cb4efe2ab854fe5404c4807f8d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-length: 780 On 9 July 2012 14:18, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 07/09/2012 01:26 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Namespace-Association.html says: >> >> "Caution: The semantics of this extension are not fully defined. Users >> should refrain from using this extension as its semantics may change >> subtly over time. It is possible that this extension will be removed >> in future versions of G++. " >> >> Is it safe to assume that the semantics are now fixed to match those >> of C++11 inline namespaces and will not change unless removed? > > > Yes, but people should use inline namespaces instead; we should deprecate > this form and then remove it in 4.9. * doc/extend.texi (Namespace Association): Alter cautionary text. How's this, OK for trunk? --e0cb4efe2ab854fe5404c4807f8d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="patch.txt" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="patch.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Attachment-Id: f_h4hhzj770 Content-length: 1408 Y29tbWl0IGQ2YTQxNGY2ZWJjZDk2NjQ1YTFhNjYxMmUzMjRlYWZlZTI0YjM5 ZTkKQXV0aG9yOiBKb25hdGhhbiBXYWtlbHkgPGp3YWtlbHkuZ2NjQGdtYWls LmNvbT4KRGF0ZTogICBUdWUgSnVsIDEwIDIxOjIxOjA5IDIwMTIgKzAxMDAK CiAgICAJKiBkb2MvZXh0ZW5kLnRleGkgKE5hbWVzcGFjZSBBc3NvY2lhdGlv bik6IEFsdGVyIGNhdXRpb25hcnkgdGV4dC4KCmRpZmYgLS1naXQgYS9nY2Mv ZG9jL2V4dGVuZC50ZXhpIGIvZ2NjL2RvYy9leHRlbmQudGV4aQppbmRleCA5 MWU3Mzg1Li5jM2ZhZjA5IDEwMDY0NAotLS0gYS9nY2MvZG9jL2V4dGVuZC50 ZXhpCisrKyBiL2djYy9kb2MvZXh0ZW5kLnRleGkKQEAgLTE1NTI3LDEwICsx NTUyNyw5IEBAIFNlZSBhbHNvIEByZWZ7TmFtZXNwYWNlIEFzc29jaWF0aW9u fS4KIEBub2RlIE5hbWVzcGFjZSBBc3NvY2lhdGlvbgogQHNlY3Rpb24gTmFt ZXNwYWNlIEFzc29jaWF0aW9uCiAKLUBzdHJvbmd7Q2F1dGlvbjp9IFRoZSBz ZW1hbnRpY3Mgb2YgdGhpcyBleHRlbnNpb24gYXJlIG5vdCBmdWxseQotZGVm aW5lZC4gIFVzZXJzIHNob3VsZCByZWZyYWluIGZyb20gdXNpbmcgdGhpcyBl eHRlbnNpb24gYXMgaXRzCi1zZW1hbnRpY3MgbWF5IGNoYW5nZSBzdWJ0bHkg b3ZlciB0aW1lLiAgSXQgaXMgcG9zc2libGUgdGhhdCB0aGlzCi1leHRlbnNp b24gd2lsbCBiZSByZW1vdmVkIGluIGZ1dHVyZSB2ZXJzaW9ucyBvZiBHKysu CitAc3Ryb25ne0NhdXRpb246fSBUaGUgc2VtYW50aWNzIG9mIHRoaXMgZXh0 ZW5zaW9uIGFyZSBlcXVpdmFsZW50Cit0byBDKysgMjAxMSBpbmxpbmUgbmFt ZXNwYWNlcy4gIFVzZXJzIHNob3VsZCB1c2UgaW5saW5lIG5hbWVzcGFjZXMK K2luc3RlYWQgYXMgdGhpcyBleHRlbnNpb24gd2lsbCBiZSByZW1vdmVkIGlu IGZ1dHVyZSB2ZXJzaW9ucyBvZiBHKysuCiAKIEEgdXNpbmctZGlyZWN0aXZl IHdpdGggQGNvZGV7X19hdHRyaWJ1dGUgKChzdHJvbmcpKX0gaXMgc3Ryb25n ZXIKIHRoYW4gYSBub3JtYWwgdXNpbmctZGlyZWN0aXZlIGluIHR3byB3YXlz Ogo= --e0cb4efe2ab854fe5404c4807f8d--