Re: question about linker

On 13.12.2024 02:31, James Kuyper wrote:

On 12/12/24 15:27, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
[...]

Note that Scott in his post wrote
>
In C++ they reside in the ordinary name space only if they're not
part of a named namespace.
>
which I interpreted as
>
In C++ they reside in the ordinary "name space" only if they're not
part of a named 'namespace'.
>
where "name space" would be the [colloquial] name of the concept
behind the symbol 'namespace'.
>
My interpretation of his post was that he wanted to differentiate
the default 'namespace' from the "named 'namespace'". (And that
the three types of "Name Spaces" (that you had in mind) were not
his concern with his remark.)

 
That is a true statement about namespaces, and completely irrelevant to
anything I was trying to say about name spaces.
 
He said that in response to my comment, which was supposed to be:
 
"In C struct, union, and enumeration tags have their own name space, in
C++ they reside in the ordinary name space."

I understand that initially you might have not used the most
accurate [standards-] term; that was not my point. I merely
wanted to point out that [as to my reading] Scott wanted to
make a different clarification (IMO a nit-pick, if you want);
to extend your explanation (of ordinary unnamed] 'namespace's
by mentioning named 'namespace's). Whether you wanted to say
"name space" or whether you meant 'namespace'. - That was all;
no deeper thought, no principal disagreement. :-)

(But it's also possible I misinterpreted Scott's intention.)

I anyway shouldn't have bothered to make any comment on that
in the first place, I admit. It's minor, of little relevance.

Janis

[...]