<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW --- - get rid of prex.h / postx.h wrapper headers" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82577#c3">Comment # 3</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW --- - get rid of prex.h / postx.h wrapper headers" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82577">bug 82577</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:tml@iki.fi" title="Tor Lillqvist <tml@iki.fi>"> Tor Lillqvist</a> <pre>One thing that we need consensus on is whether to use a "real" C++ namespace or a "C-style" one, i.e. just prefixing the conlicting LibreOffice type names with some short string, like "Vcl". I guess the C++ namespace would be better from a C++ orthodoxy point of view, but what should the namespace be? "vcl::" ? "org::libreoffice::vcl::" (brrr)? In any case, we *don't* want to repeat the current disaster of inconsistent "using" declaration, varying from one source file to another. Would using a C++ namespace have the benefit that it would be enough to just add a "using namespace vcl" (or whatever) in some header, and only those few source files that actually refer to the identically-named X11 types would need to add a :: prefix to those? Personally I wouldn't mind using a "C-style" prefix, but then I am well known to not really be that huge a C++ fan. For the cases where there are clashes with *macros* (I guess mostly for Win32?), the "C-style" identifier prefix (or even renaming our identifier completely) is the only solution, right?</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>