Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 10:43:50AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > | Possibly.
| >
| > but it will not protect us from bad macros...
|
| Indeed.
|
| > | But before I agree on doing so I want 'using namespace lyx;' legalized
| > | within LyX .C source. I certainly won't start writing a few dozen 'using
| > | lyx::foo; using lyx::bar;' in every file.
| > |
| > | [The headers will get even uglier when prefixing everything with lyx::, but
| > | I guess there's no way out in this case...]
| >
| > why will the headers be ugly?
| >
| > namespace lyx {
| >
| > // stuff as usual
| >
| > }
|
| Ok. Didn't think of this.
|
| So in fact even the implementation might be wrapped in 'namespace lyx { ...
| }'...
That might otoh not be such a good idea.
But a lyx:: on the impl will put the body in namespace lyx...
I am afraid that us using namespace lyx will not rid us of the
problems we have with Qt and namespace pollution.
--
Lgb
