Chard wrote:
Looks like this has become the active thread, despite my posting mistake/repost. Oh well..
Robert Ramey wrote:
Would that address your problem? Would it create any other problems?
Yes, it would address my problem because that would be as it was pre-1.38. However, there must have been some argument for making the change.
I don't remember why this was done. I don't know if there was even a specific reason
Did you not make the change, then? 1.37 wasn't that long ago ;-). Any SVN comments?
It was done in conjunction with another change. I suspect it was an application of a "rule" don't put anonomous namespaces in headers.
I know there have been several (non-library specific) discussions regarding putting anonymous namespaces in headers, and, generally, how it is a bad thing due to each compilation unit instantiating a different linker name for the same object (violating ODR?).
Is this a case that warrants it? I guess it uses a little bit more memory, but is that the only issue?
I would like to change it back. but before I do, I would like to hear other opinions. Robert Ramey