Al Stevens wrote:
>
> Al Stevens wrote in message ...
> >I think I've found what looks like consistently inconsistent  :-)  notation
> >in the standard.
>
> I was hoping that someone who knows how the notational conventions for the
> standard were developed would comment on the message I posted. Am I all wet?
> If so why? Is the use of std:: in the standard really inconsistent as it
> appears to me? If so, do you want a defect report? Was it done on purpose?
> If so, what was the purpose?

OK, I'll bite.  Or is it byte?

Send in a defect report.  That is really the only way to get a reliable
answer.  Anything else is just speculation.

--Beman Dawes
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

Al Stevens wrote in message ...
>I think I've found what looks like consistently inconsistent  :-)  notation
>in the standard.

I was hoping that someone who knows how the notational conventions for the
standard were developed would comment on the message I posted. Am I all wet?
If so why? Is the use of std:: in the standard really inconsistent as it
appears to me? If so, do you want a defect report? Was it done on purpose?
If so, what was the purpose?
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

I think I've found what looks like consistently inconsistent  :-)  notation
in the standard. In 15.5.2 and thereabouts there are frequent references to
such things as unexpected() and terminate() with no namespace
qualifications. In the same places are references to things such as
std::bad_exception.

I'm assuming, based on what 17.4.1.1 / 2 says that terminate() and
unexpected() are in the std namespace.

There are other such examples. Should not every reference to things in std
include the prefix? Or, if not, shouldn't all such references omit the
prefix? In other words, shouldn't there be consistency in the notation that
the standard employs for std namespace qualification?

Since every reference to macros and functions do not always specifically
identify them as such, it is not always possible to distinguish which
identifiers are in std and which are not from the context of their usage
without memorizing what is a macro and what is not.

One could argue that you could just try it and see what the compiler says,
and someday that approach will do. But right now, not every compiler is
ready. VC++ leaves all the C stuff in the global namespace regardless of the
header, and egcs lets you put std:: on anything until such time as their
standard library is ready.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]