Rice distribution

[Paolo Carlini]

Hi,

On 09/08/2012 01:46 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Ulrich Drepper <drepper@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> wrote:
>>> I get your point, but to be honest I'm not 100% sure the issues in this area
>>> are so simple. In my opinion, conservatively, before adding further
>>> non-uglified names to that namespace we should find the time to re-analyze
>>> in detail:
>>>
>>>      http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24537
>> I haven't seen much of a discussion there.  Let me ask, what is the
>> real problem?  I doubt macros should be considered a problem.  As said
>> before, the chosen, new names are long and really shouldn't conflict.
>> In the C library additions are made without leading underscores and
>> there really haven't been any big problems.  And macros are much more
>> frequent in C.
>>
>> The only possible problem I can see is if we add names without
>> underscores to __gnu_cxx and they later are used, perhaps in a
>> slightly changed form, in std.  What if programs use
>>
>> using namespace std;
>> using namespace __gnu_cxx;
>> beta_distribution<> v;
>>
>>
>> Is this the problem people are afraid of?
> I am inclined to tell people "don't do that if it hurts.
> Bring into scope what you really need; not a
> blanket statement."
Looking forward, when we break the ABI, I think we really want to make 
sure that the implementation details aren't in the same namespace of the 
extensions. I agree that if we are very careful with that, things should 
be basically fine. What we'll do with the allocators, I don't know.

Paolo.