On 08/18/2011 01:37 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Indeed. I would say let's not re-order for now, I'll have a further
look later on.
Is that a "ok" for Rainer or just part of the discussion?
Sure. Actually the libstdc++ proper bits always were, I consider those
more or less straightforward.
namespace std {
void f();
}
using std::f;
namespace std {
struct Complex{};
void f(Complex){}
}
//using std::f;
namespace std {
using ::f;
namespace tr1 {
using ::f;
void f(std::Complex);
}
}
The compiler doesn't complain for this. It does if I change which
using is commented out [namespace.udecl]p11 in C++11. I just learned
this rule and haven't thought about the consequences yet. It looks
like as long as math.h is included before complex (and complex
includes cmath so that's the case), the std::fabs(std::complex)
overload is not imported in the global namespace and hence not in tr1
either. On the other hand, it means that the overloads in cmath for
cos/sin/etc taking an integral type are not imported in the global
namespace (so std::cos(0) works but cos(0) is ambiguous). Well, it
seems ok for now...
Thus, if I understand correctly your analysis (sorry I'm in the middle
of something else) are we already ok? Is there something simple we
can/should do right now to improve things (on Solaris and/or Linux)?
Thanks,
Paolo.
