[pooma-dev] POOMA Namespace Pollution

[Jeffrey D. Oldham]

Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Hendrik Belitz wrote:
> 
>>Am Mittwoch, 26. November 2003 15:07 schrieben Sie:
>>
>>>You can also mark the colliding names inside the sources with namespace
>>>Pooma. But I really suspect internal Pooma is not namespace clean.
>>
>>It doesn't seem to be. Putting the POOMA headers into a namespace won't solve
>>the problem (this seem to lead to a double inclusion of some STL headers,
>>resulting in a pretty large bunch of errors). Not putting POOMA into an
>>namespace shows that most of the internal POOMA structures are not in the
>>POOMA namespace at all (Resulting in namespace pollution).
> 
> 
> Yes, in fact, all over the POOMA source there are commented out namespace
> Pooma guards, so I think there were compiler problems some time ago. I
> already put some global functions back into Pooma namespace locally, so
> maybe there needs to be a point in the future we re-enable all the Pooma
> namespace.
> 
> Maybe Jeffrey has some suggestions on this, as it breaks backward
> compatibility.

This might be a good time to add namespace support for POOMA.  I know of 
two issues:

1) Backwards compatibility: We might be able to maintain backwards 
compatibility by supporting optional namespaces where the default option 
is no namespaces.  I attach a file with a possible approach.

2) Adding namespaces to PETE, the loop fusion mechanism, may be non-trivial.

-- 
Jeffrey D. Oldham
oldham at codesourcery.com
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: foo.cpp
URL: <http://sourcerytools.com/pipermail/pooma-dev/attachments/20031126/bbbcd070/attachment.ksh>