> From: owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org [mailto:owner-openssl- > us...@openssl.org] On Behalf Of Richard Levitte > Sent: Monday, 08 September, 2014 10:13 > To: openssl-users@openssl.org > > Nothing really stops us from creating a C++ namespace. After all, we > do have the following construct in quite a number if not all exported > header files: > > #ifdef __cplusplus > extern "C" { > #endif > > /* yada yada yada */ > > #ifdef __cplusplus > } > #endif > > What's stopping us from specifying a namespace in there, technically > speaking? I mean, except for backward compatibility (people will > suddenly HAVE to have a line saying "using namespace openssl;" or > something like that).
Since all the OpenSSL declarations are in an extern-C block, identifier names aren't mangled, so the namespace has no effect on external visibility. And namespaces don't affect macro names. So there's little benefit - it'd be a purely lexical change that only affects how OpenSSL functions are named within C++ translation units. It doesn't help with macro or external-symbol identifier collisions. And anyone who wants this can simply include the OpenSSL headers within a namespace declaration. -- Michael Wojcik Technology Specialist, Micro Focus This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
