Clarification of the scope of this group

Discussion in 'C++' started by Tim Clacy, Dec 14, 2003.

  1. Tim Clacy

    Tim Clacy Guest

    I was advised in a recent thread that, because one of the compilers that I
    use does not support 'namespace', I should not use this group but ask
    elsewhere; perhaps comp.lang.c++.but_without_namespace'? What's the general
    consensus?

    Tim
     
    Tim Clacy, Dec 14, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tim Clacy

    Unforgiven Guest

    Tim Clacy wrote:
    > I was advised in a recent thread that, because one of the compilers
    > that I use does not support 'namespace', I should not use this group
    > but ask elsewhere; perhaps comp.lang.c++.but_without_namespace'?
    > What's the general consensus?


    We talk about everything that is mentioned in the C++ standard, nothing
    more, nothing less. If your compiler does not support namespaces advice
    about how to circumvent that falls out of the domain of Standard C++ and
    into the domain of compiler-specific issues, which are not topical here.
    Instead you should ask in a group where your compiler is topical.

    --
    Unforgiven

    "Most people make generalisations"
    Freek de Jonge
     
    Unforgiven, Dec 14, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Tim Clacy

    Tim Clacy Guest

    Unforgiven wrote:
    > Tim Clacy wrote:
    >> I was advised in a recent thread that, because one of the compilers
    >> that I use does not support 'namespace', I should not use this group
    >> but ask elsewhere; perhaps comp.lang.c++.but_without_namespace'?
    >> What's the general consensus?

    >
    > We talk about everything that is mentioned in the C++ standard,


    THE C++ standard? My understanding is that even VC 7.0 and gcc aren't
    compliant in all respects. Are you suggesting that this group is purely for
    abstract, theoretical language issues and not practical issues with actual
    language implementations?

    > nothing more, nothing less. If your compiler does not support
    > namespaces advice about how to circumvent that falls out of the
    > domain of Standard C++ and into the domain of compiler-specific
    > issues, which are not topical here. Instead you should ask in a group
    > where your compiler is topical.
     
    Tim Clacy, Dec 14, 2003
    #3
  4. Tim Clacy

    Tim Clacy Guest

    Unforgivable wrote:
    > If your compiler does not support namespaces advice about how
    > to circumvent that falls out of the domain of Standard C++ and
    > into the domain of compiler-specific issues


    I've lost count of the number of times I've read advice to avoid
    'namespace', and yet here you are suggesting that to ask a question here
    related to a workaround for a compiler that doesn't support namespace is
    inappropriate; effectively, you are saying 'don't use namespace', but if you
    need to use 'namespace' and you're compiler doesn't support it, then ask
    elsewhere :)
     
    Tim Clacy, Dec 14, 2003
    #4
  5. Tim Clacy

    Unforgiven Guest

    Tim Clacy wrote:
    > Unforgivable wrote:
    >> If your compiler does not support namespaces advice about how
    >> to circumvent that falls out of the domain of Standard C++ and
    >> into the domain of compiler-specific issues

    >
    > I've lost count of the number of times I've read advice to avoid
    > 'namespace', and yet here you are suggesting that to ask a question
    > here related to a workaround for a compiler that doesn't support
    > namespace is inappropriate; effectively, you are saying 'don't use
    > namespace', but if you need to use 'namespace' and you're compiler
    > doesn't support it, then ask elsewhere :)


    I have never said 'don't use namespace'. I'd also say that if you *need* to
    use namespace and your compiler doesn't support it, you need a different
    compiler. ^_^

    --
    Unforgiven

    "Most people make generalisations"
    Freek de Jonge
     
    Unforgiven, Dec 14, 2003
    #5
  6. Tim Clacy

    Unforgiven Guest

    Tim Clacy wrote:
    > Unforgiven wrote:
    >> Tim Clacy wrote:
    >>> I was advised in a recent thread that, because one of the compilers
    >>> that I use does not support 'namespace', I should not use this group
    >>> but ask elsewhere; perhaps comp.lang.c++.but_without_namespace'?
    >>> What's the general consensus?

    >>
    >> We talk about everything that is mentioned in the C++ standard,

    >
    > THE C++ standard? My understanding is that even VC 7.0 and gcc aren't
    > compliant in all respects. Are you suggesting that this group is
    > purely for abstract, theoretical language issues and not practical
    > issues with actual language implementations?


    VC7.1 comes pretty close in terms of standards-compliance (although it has
    quite a few non-standard extensions), so does Comeau. But you are basically
    right with your statements. We do not discuss any specific implementation,
    but C++ 'as it should be'. So if you have issues that are specific to a
    certain compiler, and not to C++ as a language, this isn't the place for
    them. The only exception of course is when you have a question of the sort
    'This doesn't compile in my compiler, should it according to the standard or
    am I doing something wrong?'

    --
    Unforgiven

    "Most people make generalisations"
    Freek de Jonge
     
    Unforgiven, Dec 14, 2003
    #6
  7. Tim Clacy

    Tim Clacy Guest

    Unforgiven wrote:
    > Tim Clacy wrote:
    >> Unforgivable wrote:
    >>> If your compiler does not support namespaces advice about how
    >>> to circumvent that falls out of the domain of Standard C++ and
    >>> into the domain of compiler-specific issues

    >>
    >> I've lost count of the number of times I've read advice to avoid
    >> 'namespace', and yet here you are suggesting that to ask a question
    >> here related to a workaround for a compiler that doesn't support
    >> namespace is inappropriate; effectively, you are saying 'don't use
    >> namespace', but if you need to use 'namespace' and you're compiler
    >> doesn't support it, then ask elsewhere :)

    >
    > I have never said 'don't use namespace'. I'd also say that if you
    > *need* to use namespace and your compiler doesn't support it, you
    > need a different compiler. ^_^


    I don't know where you're from, but you should come visit Earth some time;
    it's an awful place where, sometimes, you have no choice but to work with
    tools that are flawed. I very much like the sound of your world though; how
    do you get there? Do you do any commercial development there or is it purely
    academic?
     
    Tim Clacy, Dec 14, 2003
    #7
  8. Tim Clacy

    Tim Clacy Guest

    Unforgiven wrote:
    > Tim Clacy wrote:
    >> Unforgiven wrote:
    >>> Tim Clacy wrote:
    >>>> I was advised in a recent thread that, because one of the compilers
    >>>> that I use does not support 'namespace', I should not use this
    >>>> group but ask elsewhere; perhaps
    >>>> comp.lang.c++.but_without_namespace'?
    >>>> What's the general consensus?
    >>>
    >>> We talk about everything that is mentioned in the C++ standard,

    >>
    >> THE C++ standard? My understanding is that even VC 7.0 and gcc aren't
    >> compliant in all respects. Are you suggesting that this group is
    >> purely for abstract, theoretical language issues and not practical
    >> issues with actual language implementations?

    >
    > VC7.1 comes pretty close in terms of standards-compliance (although
    > it has quite a few non-standard extensions), so does Comeau. But you
    > are basically right with your statements. We do not discuss any
    > specific implementation, but C++ 'as it should be'. So if you have
    > issues that are specific to a certain compiler, and not to C++ as a
    > language, this isn't the place for them. The only exception of course
    > is when you have a question of the sort 'This doesn't compile in my
    > compiler, should it according to the standard or am I doing something
    > wrong?'


    VC7.1 is so new the ink is still wet on the boxes. If you want to limit
    discussion here to those using compilers that are 100% bang-up to date with
    the latest language hacks, I think you'll be talking to yourself; which,
    perhaps, is what you would prefer?
     
    Tim Clacy, Dec 14, 2003
    #8
  9. Tim Clacy

    Tim Clacy Guest

    osmium wrote:
    > Tim Clacy writes:
    >
    >>> We talk about everything that is mentioned in the C++ standard,

    >>
    >> THE C++ standard? My understanding is that even VC 7.0 and gcc aren't
    >> compliant in all respects. Are you suggesting that this group is
    >> purely for abstract, theoretical language issues and not practical
    >> issues with actual language implementations?

    >
    > As I see it, discussion is limited to the latest best effort of the
    > major compilers, rather than to the standard. The major out standing
    > issue is templated code and how object files magically appear. But
    > there may be some wiggle room specifically included in the standard
    > on that issue. Whether there is official wiggle room or not, there
    > is a Gentlemen's Agreement that some things are OK and some are not.
    > After immersion in the culture for a while, you will kind of absorb,
    > by osmosis or something, what the rules really are.
    >
    > I looked at your other post you refer to. The battle you are
    > fighting is that all old compilers were supposed to have been put in
    > a bonfire and burned when the standard was approved. You appear to
    > have one that escaped destruction. Think smallpox.


    osmium,

    I don't think I'm the only one in the battle; there are millions of us.
    Forums like this are our refuge; it bites hard if we're not let in because
    the generals don't supply us with regulation shoe-laces :)
     
    Tim Clacy, Dec 14, 2003
    #9
  10. Tim Clacy

    osmium Guest

    Tim Clacy writes:

    > > We talk about everything that is mentioned in the C++ standard,

    >
    > THE C++ standard? My understanding is that even VC 7.0 and gcc aren't
    > compliant in all respects. Are you suggesting that this group is purely

    for
    > abstract, theoretical language issues and not practical issues with actual
    > language implementations?


    As I see it, discussion is limited to the latest best effort of the major
    compilers, rather than to the standard. The major out standing issue is
    templated code and how object files magically appear. But there may be some
    wiggle room specifically included in the standard on that issue. Whether
    there is official wiggle room or not, there is a Gentlemen's Agreement that
    some things are OK and some are not. After immersion in the culture for a
    while, you will kind of absorb, by osmosis or something, what the rules
    really are.

    I looked at your other post you refer to. The battle you are fighting is
    that all old compilers were supposed to have been put in a bonfire and
    burned when the standard was approved. You appear to have one that escaped
    destruction. Think smallpox.
     
    osmium, Dec 14, 2003
    #10
  11. "Tim Clacy" <> wrote in message
    news:3fdc7f4f$0$267$...
    > osmium wrote:
    > > Tim Clacy writes:
    > >
    > >>> We talk about everything that is mentioned in the C++ standard,
    > >>
    > >> THE C++ standard? My understanding is that even VC 7.0 and gcc aren't
    > >> compliant in all respects. Are you suggesting that this group is
    > >> purely for abstract, theoretical language issues and not practical
    > >> issues with actual language implementations?

    > >
    > > As I see it, discussion is limited to the latest best effort of the
    > > major compilers, rather than to the standard. The major out standing
    > > issue is templated code and how object files magically appear. But
    > > there may be some wiggle room specifically included in the standard
    > > on that issue. Whether there is official wiggle room or not, there
    > > is a Gentlemen's Agreement that some things are OK and some are not.
    > > After immersion in the culture for a while, you will kind of absorb,
    > > by osmosis or something, what the rules really are.
    > >
    > > I looked at your other post you refer to. The battle you are
    > > fighting is that all old compilers were supposed to have been put in
    > > a bonfire and burned when the standard was approved. You appear to
    > > have one that escaped destruction. Think smallpox.

    >
    > osmium,
    >
    > I don't think I'm the only one in the battle; there are millions of us.
    > Forums like this are our refuge; it bites hard if we're not let in because
    > the generals don't supply us with regulation shoe-laces :)
    >
    >


    The thing is, if you are looking for ways to deal with the idiosyncracies
    of a particular compiler, you are better off asking people who *are*
    using that compiler (in a newsgroup devoted to it) than asking people
    who *may be* using that compiler (in some other place).

    Given the fact that a lot of people new to the language make use of
    this group, it is important to constantly draw the line as to where the
    language leaves off and the file systems/gui libraries/compiler directives
    etc. etc. begin.

    Tom
     
    Thomas Wintschel, Dec 14, 2003
    #11
  12. Tim Clacy

    Unforgiven Guest

    Tim Clacy wrote:
    > I don't know where you're from, but you should come visit Earth some
    > time; it's an awful place where, sometimes, you have no choice but to
    > work with tools that are flawed. I very much like the sound of your
    > world though; how do you get there? Do you do any commercial
    > development there or is it purely academic?


    Yes I do commercial development, and I am quite aware of limitations that
    can be in place due to corporate policy. However, I think you missed my
    joke. I said that if you *need* namespaces you'd need a new compiler. If you
    can work around the issue with your current compiler, you don't really need
    them, hence my statement.

    --
    Unforgiven
     
    Unforgiven, Dec 16, 2003
    #12
  13. Tim Clacy

    jeffc Guest

    "Tim Clacy" <> wrote in message
    news:3fdc6640$0$266$...
    > I was advised in a recent thread that, because one of the compilers that I
    > use does not support 'namespace', I should not use this group but ask
    > elsewhere; perhaps comp.lang.c++.but_without_namespace'? What's the

    general
    > consensus?


    Of course you should ask here. There are some "standards police" who don't
    understand that C++ is a language implemented by compilers. Ther is no such
    thing as a perfect compiler. Also, that we do not just discuss C++ as it
    exists in the standard today, but C++ as it has existed over the years.
     
    jeffc, Dec 16, 2003
    #13
  14. Tim Clacy

    jeffc Guest

    "Tim Clacy" <> wrote in message
    news:3fdc74ae$0$264$...
    >
    > THE C++ standard? My understanding is that even VC 7.0 and gcc aren't
    > compliant in all respects. Are you suggesting that this group is purely

    for
    > abstract, theoretical language issues and not practical issues with actual
    > language implementations?


    Yes, that's what he's suggesting. He's wrong though.
     
    jeffc, Dec 16, 2003
    #14
  15. Tim Clacy

    jeffc Guest

    "Thomas Wintschel" <> wrote in message
    news:V%1Db.7993$OJ.4485@edtnps84...
    >
    > Given the fact that a lot of people new to the language make use of
    > this group, it is important to constantly draw the line as to where the
    > language leaves off and the file systems/gui libraries/compiler directives
    > etc. etc. begin.


    As long as the "new people" understand it's not standard, and that the
    solution is a C++ solution, there shouldn't be a problem.
     
    jeffc, Dec 16, 2003
    #15
  16. Tim Clacy

    jeffc Guest

    "Tim Clacy" <> wrote in message
    news:3fdc7ce4$0$268$...
    > I very much like the sound of your world though; how
    > do you get there?


    You're here.

    > Do you do any commercial development there or is it purely academic?


    Rhetorical question, right?
     
    jeffc, Dec 16, 2003
    #16
  17. Tim Clacy

    tom_usenet Guest

    On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:33:16 +0100, "Tim Clacy"
    <> wrote:

    >Unforgiven wrote:
    >> Tim Clacy wrote:
    >>> I was advised in a recent thread that, because one of the compilers
    >>> that I use does not support 'namespace', I should not use this group
    >>> but ask elsewhere; perhaps comp.lang.c++.but_without_namespace'?
    >>> What's the general consensus?

    >>
    >> We talk about everything that is mentioned in the C++ standard,

    >
    >THE C++ standard? My understanding is that even VC 7.0 and gcc aren't
    >compliant in all respects. Are you suggesting that this group is purely for
    >abstract, theoretical language issues and not practical issues with actual
    >language implementations?


    Maybe 90% of the code for most programs can be written to be entirely
    standards compliant (and even portable) as long as you have a
    reasonably recent compiler (even MSVC6!). For the other 10% of code,
    including platform libraries and APIs, compiler workarounds, etc.,
    etc., it makes sense to direct your question to an appropriate group
    handling that compiler. Some compilers don't have active usenet
    groups, but there are usually mailing lists (for, say, gcc) or tech
    support people.

    If you want a standard compliant workaround to avoid a particular
    standard feature that your compiler doesn't support, I'd certainly
    have no problem answering such a question here, so long as the
    workarounds aren't too labourious. Others may choose to differ (and
    even flame such questions), and that's their privilege.

    Tom

    C++ FAQ: http://www.parashift.com/c -faq-lite/
    C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
     
    tom_usenet, Dec 16, 2003
    #17
  18. Tim Clacy

    Jerry Coffin Guest

    In article <3fdc7dd9$0$258$>,
    amdk says...

    [ ... ]

    > VC7.1 is so new the ink is still wet on the boxes.


    VC++ 7.1 was officially released in February, and IIRC, MSDN subscribers
    could download it around a month before that. IOW, it's a couple of
    weeks short of a year old.

    > If you want to limit
    > discussion here to those using compilers that are 100% bang-up to date with
    > the latest language hacks, I think you'll be talking to yourself; which,
    > perhaps, is what you would prefer?


    Comeau C++ has been even closer to conforming since quite a while before
    VC++ 7.1 came out. Furthermore, it's dirt cheap and easily available
    for nearly every platform around (and I believe he'll do custom ports to
    other platforms as well).

    To make a long story short, compilers that are at least awfully close to
    conforming have been widely available for quite a while now. I'm not
    saying every discussion has to use every obscure feature to be
    interesting, but I also don't think compiler availability is a very good
    reason to limit discussions either.

    --
    Later,
    Jerry.

    The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
     
    Jerry Coffin, Dec 19, 2003
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Paul Opal
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    959
    Paul Opal
    Oct 11, 2004
  2. ann
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    671
    Patricia Shanahan
    Sep 13, 2005
  3. Steven T. Hatton
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    485
  4. Xah Lee
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,246
    Xah Lee
    Feb 26, 2009
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    167
Loading...

Share This Page