Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> On 30.05.10 20:40, Warp wrote:
> >> As said, there is no problem as long as new experimental compiler features
> >> are not enabled. There are actually C++ macros that return the version that
> >> is being compiled against. I would argue that it might be a good idea to
> >> check this version and refuse to preprocess if the required version is not set.
> >
> >    You are seriously suggesting that instead of removing "using namespace std;"
> > and "using namespace boost;", the code should use some non-standard macro
> > checks and refuse to compile if they do not have a certain value?
> >
> >    Have you gone completely mad?

> See, I don't have to get mad and jump up and down after I misinterpreted 
> some statement because of lack of background knowledge. I just have to know 
> that "__cplusplus" is a standard macro defined for exactly the purpose I 
> stated :-)

>      Thorsten


> PS: This incident beggs the rhetoric question if I did not just a few 
> minutes ago predict that you start arguments over misinterpretations exactly 
> like the one above...

  You still keep accusing me of misinterpreting you, yet you fail to
specify exactly how I'm misinterpreting.

  You suggested making POV-Ray refuse to let itself being compiled by using
precompiler checks if the C++ standard version happens to be newer than the
current one. And the *sole* reason for this is that the source code uses
"using namespace std;" and "using namespace boost;" which potentially causes
name collisions.

  That suggestion is just crazy. Naturally the correct solution is to remove
the name collisions by *not* dumping everything to the global namespace.
Every C++ programmer who is even fairly competent knows this.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message