Re: flat namespaces redux

[Robert Boehne]

Albert,

Well, I'm not sure about what Apple recommends, I think
the two level namespace linker is the result of the "ld" team
at Apple being too low in the food chain.  ;)
If there were a good reason (like this one) that would
change the picture.  Part of the problem is that OS X is
quite odd, and I don't have one on my desk to poke at
or read docs for.  Because of that, I'm not really sure what
to do with it in many respects.

Robert

Albert Chin wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 09:56:47PM -0600, Robert Boehne wrote:
> > [snip snip]
> >
> > For this feature to really be useful a library would have to be
> >   a) Initially developed on OS/X
> >   b) dependent on two level namespace
> >   c) not really useful on any other plaform (no reason to
> >      fix for a flat namespace)
> > I don't think there are too many libraries that would fit this
> > criteria, but please, correct me if I'm wrong.
> >
> > In short, I'm not dead set against the idea, I just don't see the point.
> 
> I have no clue when it comes to OSX. However, the only reason I
> support this is the impression I get that two-level namespaces are
> good for OSX. Is this true? Does Apple *recommend* flat or two-level
> namespaces?
> 
> --
> albert chin (address@hidden)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Libtool mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool