Just a quick heads-up before I head off to bed...
Nathan's merged Fred's boolean path stuff into HEAD, and I think we've nailed down the last of the build problems for the time being.
Y'all might want to have a look.
-mental
p.s. looks like we will be starting the C++ conversion in earnest late this weekend
MenTaLguY wrote:
Just a quick heads-up before I head off to bed...
Nathan's merged Fred's boolean path stuff into HEAD, and I think we've nailed down the last of the build problems for the time being.
Y'all might want to have a look.
First, I noticed that it has introduced mixed-case filenames. Do we care?
Also, I'm getting a slew of these:
/usr/include/c++/3.2/backward/backward_warning.h:32:2: warning: #warning This file includes at least one deprecated or antiquated header. Please consider using one of the 32 headers found in section 17.4.1.2 of the C++ standard. Examples include substituting the <X> header for the <X.h> header for C++ includes, or <sstream> instead of the deprecated header <strstream.h>. To disable this warning use -Wno-deprecated.
In the cases I've checked, this is due to including <iostream.h> instead of <iostream>
We should probably clean this up. IIRC, the main difference is the namespace issue.
On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 13:48, Jon A. Cruz wrote:
First, I noticed that it has introduced mixed-case filenames. Do we care?
Not until we have an agreed-upon coding standard that specifies whether mixed-case filenames are good or bad.
(I personally prefer naming files after the class/namespace they implement, case and all, though.)
Also, I'm getting a slew of these:
/usr/include/c++/3.2/backward/backward_warning.h:32:2: warning: #warning This file includes at least one deprecated or antiquated header. Please consider using one of the 32 headers found in section 17.4.1.2 of the C++ standard. Examples include substituting the <X> header for the <X.h> header for C++ includes, or <sstream> instead of the deprecated header <strstream.h>. To disable this warning use -Wno-deprecated.
In the cases I've checked, this is due to including <iostream.h> instead of <iostream>
We should probably clean this up. IIRC, the main difference is the namespace issue.
Feel free to do so.
-mental
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, MenTaLguY wrote:
On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 13:48, Jon A. Cruz wrote:
First, I noticed that it has introduced mixed-case filenames. Do we care?
Not until we have an agreed-upon coding standard that specifies whether mixed-case filenames are good or bad.
(I personally prefer naming files after the class/namespace they implement, case and all, though.)
With mixed case codebases it is possible to have two files differing only by case that are recognized on the UNIX side but cause collisions on the Windows side, which makes CVS updates blow up on Windows.
Bryce
On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 14:48, Bryce Harrington wrote:
With mixed case codebases it is possible to have two files differing only by case that are recognized on the UNIX side but cause collisions on the Windows side, which makes CVS updates blow up on Windows.
Well, certainly having filenames that differ only by case should be against the coding standards.
-mental
participants (3)
-
Bryce Harrington -
Jon A. Cruz -
MenTaLguY