From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-14 15:20:57
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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.
Yes, and let me support that assertion by saying it's probably going
to continue to work on every C++ compiler we ever encounter. Maybe
some fancy lint tool would be able to detect it. It's really only a
technical violation of the standard. But that said, I don't like the
idea of, entrapment even if the crime commited is victimless... or
something. I hope y'all see my point.
> 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.
I agree. I think you should put the report silencing directive in the
RC_1_34_0 branch only, with a note saying that we will address it in
the next release. How does that sound to you?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk