Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnewsm!gregk
From: gregk@cbnewsm.att.com (gregory.p.kochanski)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: namespace (rethought & reiterated)
Message-ID: <1991Feb6.222339.17017@cbnewsm.att.com>
Date: 6 Feb 91 22:23:39 GMT
References: <1991Feb4.231633.4164@cbnewsm.att.com> <4e2Gwz9f@cs.psu.edu> <1991Feb6.155227.553@mathcs.sjsu.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 17

In article <1991Feb6.155227.553@mathcs.sjsu.edu> horstman@mathcs.sjsu.edu (Cay Horstmann) writes:
>I for one wish that the ANSI C++ committee had the courage to address 
>these issues and do these cleanups [I have lots more to suggest] once
>and for all, no matter how much C code they break.
>
>But the mantra "it will 
>break gobs of old code" can easily frustrate all discussion. 

1) I don't know how big the existing base of C++ code is, but I'm not
volunteering to spend the rest of my life updating it because of
unnecessary incompatibilities.  Perhaps Mr. Horstmann is.

2)  My comment about 'breaking existing code' was in reference to a part
of the proposal that did not seem central to me.  Specifically, the proposer
seemed to want to make use of his mechanism mandatory, and I'd just
as soon make it optional.  Will the flamers please state why it must be
mandatory?