| Title: | ATOM Tool Development System |
| Moderator: | CALDEC::SCHMIDT |
| Created: | Tue Sep 07 1993 |
| Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 309 |
| Total number of notes: | 979 |
Could somebody from the ATOM team please reply to this?
For DEC C++ V6.0 namespace support, there two approaches:
a) Mangle namespace members' names the same as class members
b) Mangle namespace members' names in a way that makes it clear the
member is a namespace member, not a class member.
We (the C++ team) would like to go with option (a). Will this break
anything with ATOM? Is either option preferred for any reason?
Thanks in advance
- Matt
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 298.1 | This is an Open Issue | NNTPD::"[email protected]" | Gail Lyons | Wed Apr 23 1997 06:48 | 18 |
Matt - There is currently a proposal, written by Dennis Murphy, that details the various options of handling C++ namespace names. The Object File/Symbol Table Working Group has yet to vote on this proposal. Atom will be modified, if necessary, to implement the C++ namespace support approved by the OFSTWG. You can see the proposal note #60, in the DECNotes conference http://www-notes.lkg.dec.com/smurf/unix_objsym Randy Lowell ([email protected]) is the moderator, and the leader of the OFSTWG. Gail Lyons [Posted by WWW Notes gateway] | |||||