------- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-10-26 12:37 ------- (In reply to comment #1) > Seems like to me, this is what namespaces are for anyways? and non-uglified > names are correct, maybe it needs to be a different namespace like > __gnu_cxx::__implemenation instead which seems like the more correct thing to > do than uglify names. I think this is what Boost does too.
Indeed, the idea is using namespaces. But seems much more clean to me using separate namespaces, not nested ones, for our problem: __gnu_cxx for new extensions and __gnu_legacy for legacy extensions. The implementation proper bits are instead already inside __gnu_internal. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24537
