🚀 go-pugleaf

dick@silicon.csci.csusb.edu (Dr. Richard Botting) wrote:
>This makes me wonder whether standard libraries may need
>to be, kind of, multiple level.  

This kind of thing could be good, but it is hard to
agree on the details (i.e. hard to standardise) at this
time.

However, with namespaces, one can have both the 
standard STL as well as using the MAXTAL implementation
(because my implementation lives in its own namespace).

This isn't quite what you want, but is probably the
closest C++ can come to it.

In the case of the inheritance structure of the
exception classes I argued strongly that the standard
should specify ABSTRACT classes derived using
virtual inheritance -- but the committee thought
otherwise.

So .. if you prefer my implementation, you just use
namespace MAXTAL and you have the full object oriented
exceptions, and if you use the namespace 'std' you get
the fixed value oriented exceptions.


Not ideal, but namespaces are the best we've got
for supporting multiple libraries -- and they do a fairly
good job considering the specs were produced by
a committee :-)


-- 
John Max Skaller               voice: 61-2-566-2189
81 Glebe Point Rd              fax:   61-2-660-0850
GLEBE NSW 2037                 email: maxtal@suphys.physics.oz.au
AUSTRALIA                      email: skaller@maxtal.com.au



---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]