Gennaro Prota wrote:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 07:00:26 -0400, David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota@yahoo.com> writes:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 22:00:09 +0200, Thorsten Ottosen <thorsten.ottosen@dezide.com> wrote:
What is the problem with an unnamed namespace in a header anyway? Is it illegal according to the standard?
Thorsten, this is not addressed to you, but I find shameful that so many boosters don't know this C++ 101.
Now, now, Genny. I don't recall anyone ever talking about the problem until I raised it a year or two ago.
And here's the ego I was talking about. You may feel like the first man who brought the light on all us, but that light is common advice for any comp.lang.c++.moderated regular.
Not quite... the general advice against putting unnamed namespaces in headers is one thing, explaining how the constant variable (unnamed)::_1 technically causes ODR violations is another. In practice, Bind is getting away with this kind of a technical ODR violation on every supported compiler. But my question wasn't about ODR violations or egos. I asked what is the proper course of action for a library developer whose library has been flagged by the report. And it seems that nobody knows. I can remove the unnamed namespace (at some cost) but this is a potentially destabilizing change and not suited for 1.34, against which the report is being run.