From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25902 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2002 23:48:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 25859 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2002 23:48:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.cdt.org) (206.112.85.61) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Oct 2002 23:48:41 -0000 Received: from dberlin.org (pool-138-88-93-214.res.east.verizon.net [138.88.93.214]) by mail.cdt.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58CAF4900C4; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 19:23:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.0.1] (HELO dberlin.org) by dberlin.org (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0) with ESMTP-TLS id 1071442; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 19:48:39 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 16:48:00 -0000 From: Daniel Berlin To: David Carlton Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Elena Zannoni , Jim Blandy Subject: Re: [rfc/rfa] accept DW_TAG_namespace and friends, possibly on 5.3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00445.txt.bz2 > > That's too bad. Is it just the ones that are in block scope that > cause problems, or do the ones in namespace scope other than the > global namespace also get dumped into the global namespace instead? > Either way, probably having them in the wrong scope would probably be > better for users than not having them at all. (Though I'm not an > experienced enough C++ programmer to know for sure how confusing that > would be.) But it's definitely suboptimal. I meant i could do it that way without any trouble. Doing it right is complicated, but doable. It'll just take me more than a few days. > > David Carlton > carlton@math.stanford.edu > >