On 2022-07-12 7:36 p.m., Pedro Alves wrote: > On 2022-07-12 7:22 p.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, 12 Jul 2022, 17:40 Pedro Alves, <pe...@palves.net >> <mailto: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. >> > > It isn't a strawman, Jon. Maybe there's some miscommunication. The > conversion started (and part of it is > still quoted above), by thinking about what we'd do once we get to C++14, and > my suggestion to optimize > for that. When we get to the point when we require C++14, make_unique is no > longer different from any other > symbol in the std namespace, and there will be no reason to treat it > differently anymore. Like, if someone at > that point proposes to remove the global make_unique or gcc::make_unique, and > replace all references with > std::make_unique, there will be no real ground to object to that, why > wouldn't you want it? This is very > much like when you removed "gnu::unique_ptr" (not going to miss it) a few > months back -- you replaced > it by "std::unique_ptr"; gnu::unique_ptr wasn't kept just because of history.
Sorry to reply to myself -- but I'm not sure it is clear what I meant above in the last sentence, so let me try again: 'the "gnu::unique_ptr" wasn't rewritten as an import of std::unique_ptr into the gnu namespace just because of history.'
