Re: libstdc++/3759: nonconforming use of unqualified std:: names

["David Abrahams" <david.abrahams@rcn.com>]

The following reply was made to PR libstdc++/3759; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams@rcn.com>
To: "Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr@codesourcery.com>
Cc: "Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr@codesourcery.com>,
	<rittle@labs.mot.com>,
	<gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>,
	<gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: libstdc++/3759: nonconforming use of unqualified std:: names
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 09:23:59 -0400

 ----- Original Message -----
 From: "Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr@codesourcery.com>
 
 
 > "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams@rcn.com> writes:
 > |
 > | Loren's email doesn't seem to be concerned with the issue of whether the
 > | library meets the spec, but with general GNU coding style guidelines in
 > | which (I think) I have no stake.
 >
 > No. I don't think you undertand Loren's mail correectly.  As I
 > understand Loren's mail, the issue isn't just about GNU coding style
 > -- he used elements from that coding style to justify qualification.
 > His concerns, as I undertand it, is to come with a solution
 
 To what? I'm not being (intentionally) obtuse here; it seems like he and you
 are concerned with the use of explicit qualification. In the context of this
 discussion, I am only concerned with getting the library to meet its spec.
 Since there are other ways to do that than adding explicit qualification, it
 doesn't seem like there's much for me to contribute to the discussion the
 two of you want to have... unless I misunderstand something.
 
 > and an additional "guiding principles" to the existing coding style.
 
 As I wrote, I don't think I have a stake in that part of the discussion.
 
 > | I wasn't planning to respond, but if you
 > | think there is a point that merits my direct attention, please forward
 me
 > | the excerpt in question.
 >
 > I don't know exactly how I'm supposed to behave in face of such a
 > condescending tone.
 
 Wow, we really got off on the wrong foot here. I didn't mean to be
 condescending. Maybe "merits" isn't the best word and I should have said
 "warrants". In any case, I'm just trying to say that I don't think I can add
 anything more useful to the discussion than I already have, and I didn't
 notice any new opportunities for me to be helpful in Loren's message. If you
 did, I'd like you to point me at them so I can try. Otherwise, I think, as
 they say, "my work here is done".
 
 -Dave