Re: [boost] Boost inspection notification (2006-09-13/RC_1_34_0) *X*

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-14 14:36:14

Gennaro Prota wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 07:00:26 -0400, David Abrahams
> <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 22:00:09 +0200, Thorsten Ottosen
>>> <thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What is the problem with an unnamed namespace in a header anyway?
>>>> Is it illegal according to the standard?
>>>
>>> Thorsten, this is not addressed to you, but I find shameful that so
>>> many boosters don't know this C++ 101.
>>
>> Now, now, Genny.  I don't recall anyone ever talking about the
>> problem until I raised it a year or two ago.
>
> And here's the ego I was talking about. You may feel like the first
> man who brought the light on all us, but that light is common advice
> for any comp.lang.c++.moderated regular.

Not quite... the general advice against putting unnamed namespaces in 
headers is one thing, explaining how the constant variable (unnamed)::_1 
technically causes ODR violations is another.

In practice, Bind is getting away with this kind of a technical ODR 
violation on every supported compiler.

But my question wasn't about ODR violations or egos. I asked what is the 
proper course of action for a library developer whose library has been 
flagged by the report. And it seems that nobody knows. I can remove the 
unnamed namespace (at some cost) but this is a potentially destabilizing 
change and not suited for 1.34, against which the report is being run.