David R Tribble wrote:

> A namespace,
> by any other name, is just a wrapper class.

Not really.  I've had the opportunity to use a compiler that supports
namespaces for a few months now.

A class has a single definition.  The same namespace can be used in
multiple declarations and definitions.

Namespaces can be shortened be use of an alias; this doesn't seem to
cause the same weirdness that typedefs do. (See the thread on forward
declarations of template instantations for examples of "weirdness".)

A namespace can bring symbols from other namespaces into it.

I don't know of a class equivalent of using directives and declarations.

It's my opinion that related sets of functions that don't share data are
better modeled in a namespace ran than as classes.

> Oh, but I forgot, your single compiler supports
> namespaces while the eight or nine compilers we use don't.

Isn't the idea of a standard is that all compilers will move towards it,
not that the standard is supposed to define the least common denominator
of existing compilers?

> Not exactly.  What happens when your operator<<() conflicts with a > third party's operator<<()?  Or when your List class conflicts with > someone else's List class?

Generally, the operator's<< we define are overloaded on classes we
define, so there isn't a problem with a conflict with anyone elses.  Our
List class doesn't conflict with someone's else's list class because it
IS in a namespace.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: Try just posting with your
                newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html
  Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu
]