Re: Language extensions

On 16/01/11 12:17, Marek Janukowicz wrote:

> Btw. there is another question - what is the proper way (if any) to go with
> language extensions? One thing that I *really* miss since I starting writing
> stuff bigger than a few classes is some kind of namespaces. Because right now
> I'm ending up with class names like MUSH_NET_HTTP_REQUEST_GET (MUSH being the
> general name of my library). I could try taking a shot at implementing it on
> compiler level (doesn't sound like something terribly complicated)

    ......eerrrrrr!! Whether modern linkers have improved the situation 
or not I am not sure, but in earlier days the problem was the name 
mangling involved to get identities for linkable items which were short 
enough - and still sufficiently recognizable - to work with the various 
linkers around (some of which just truncated too-long identifiers). This 
is not just a compiler issue - rather one of the compilation environment.

	YHBW,

		Keith