On Tue, 12 Jul 2022, 17:40 Pedro Alves, <pe...@palves.net> wrote: > On 2022-07-12 4:14 p.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > >> So once GCC requires C++14, why would you want to preserve > >> once-backported symbols in a namespace other than std, when you no > longer have a reason to? > >> It will just be another unnecessary thing that newcomers at that future > time will have > >> to learn. > > > > I also don't see a problem with importing std::make_unique into > > namespace gcc for local use alongside other things in namespace gcc. I > > do consider that idiomatic. It says "the make_unique for gcc code is > > std::make_unique". It means you only need a 'using namespace gcc;' at > > the top of a source file and you get access to everything in namespace > > gcc, even if it is something like std::make_unique that was originally > > defined in a different namespace. > > > > If that's the approach, then GCC should import std::unique_ptr, std::move, > std::foo, std::bar into the gcc namespace too, no? Are you really going > to propose that? >
No, I don't follow the logic of "if you do it for one thing you must do it for everything". That's a straw man. But I don't really mind how this gets done. Your suggestion is fine. >
