| Title: | ATOM Tool Development System | 
| Moderator: | CALDEC::SCHMIDT | 
| Created: | Tue Sep 07 1993 | 
| Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 | 
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 | 
| Number of topics: | 309 | 
| Total number of notes: | 979 | 
    Could somebody from the ATOM team please reply to this?
    
    For DEC C++ V6.0 namespace support, there two approaches:
       
        a) Mangle namespace members' names the same as class members
        b) Mangle namespace members' names in a way that makes it clear the
                member is a namespace member, not a class member.
    
    We (the C++ team) would like to go with option (a).  Will this break
    anything with ATOM?  Is either option preferred for any reason?
    
    Thanks in advance
                                                         - Matt
    
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines | 
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 298.1 | This is an Open Issue | NNTPD::"[email protected]" | Gail Lyons | Wed Apr 23 1997 06:48 | 18 | 
| Matt - There is currently a proposal, written by Dennis Murphy, that details the various options of handling C++ namespace names. The Object File/Symbol Table Working Group has yet to vote on this proposal. Atom will be modified, if necessary, to implement the C++ namespace support approved by the OFSTWG. You can see the proposal note #60, in the DECNotes conference http://www-notes.lkg.dec.com/smurf/unix_objsym Randy Lowell ([email protected]) is the moderator, and the leader of the OFSTWG. Gail Lyons [Posted by WWW Notes gateway] | |||||