From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "John A. Tamplin" To: Joe Buck Cc: egcs@cygnus.com Subject: Re: Implications of tighter integration of libg++ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 00:53:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <199802092347.PAA19098@atrus.synopsys.com> X-SW-Source: 1998-02/msg00408.html On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Joe Buck wrote: > Even so, perhaps a backward compatibility layer could be written. But it > might be easier just to ship two libstdc++ versions with different major > version numbers than to try to figure out how to make one library do. The > whole reason for using the std namespace is so that users are freed up to > use the hundreds of names the standard library takes away. Any scheme > that tries to preserve backward compatibility will also pollute the > namespace (preventing users from using certain identifier names), meaning > that we won't have a conforming compiler. Why couldn't you just have the compatibility layer in a separate library? That way those symbols would only be used if it were explicitly added to the link command. For those sites that didn't care about using the previously reserved symbols, it could be automatically linked or even be included as a separate object in the standard library. John Tamplin Traveller Information Services jat@Traveller.COM 2104 West Ferry Way 205/883-4233x7007 Huntsville, AL 35801