Nesting unnamed namespaces

Is there a functional difference between these two nested usages of unnamed namespaces:

namespace A { namespace {
  void foo() {/*...*/}
}}

and

namespace { namespace A {
  void foo() {/*...*/}
}}

As far as I see it, both foos will get an internal unique identifier per compilation unit and can be accessed w开发者_C百科ith A::foo - but is there a subtle or not-so-subtle difference that I'm not seeing?

---

Exactly as you typed, there is no difference.

You can, of course, add declarations in the first level of namespace to booth examples and then it will be a difference.

namespace A {
  int i;         // Accessed globally in this file as "A::i".
  namespace {
    void foo() {/*...*/}
}}


namespace {
  int i;         // Accessed globally in this file simply as "i".
  namespace A {
    void foo() {/*...*/}
}}}

Note that, although you programmer have no way to distinguish, for the compiler, the namespaces are distinct:

unnamed_namespaces.cpp:42:5: error: reference to ‘A’ is ambiguous
unnamed_namespaces.cpp:19:17: error: candidates are: namespace A { }
unnamed_namespaces.cpp:28:19: error:                 namespace <unnamed>::A { }

Usefull:

• Nested anonymous namespace?
• http://www.codingunit.com/cplusplus-tutorial-namespaces-and-anonymous-namespaces
• http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/comphelp/v8v101/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.ibm.xlcpp8a.doc%2Flanguage%2Fref%2Funnamed_namespaces.htm
• http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=31783&seqNum=6
• http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/yct4x9k5%28v=vs.80%29.aspx

---

EDIT:

In respect to ADL (Argument-dependent name lookup), I understand that it will be no precedence difference in overload resolution for other foo() as below:

#include    <iostream>

void foo() { std::cout << "::foo()" << std::endl; }

namespace A {
    namespace {
        void foo() { std::cout << "A::<unnamed>::foo()" << std::endl; }

        class   AClass
        {
        public:
            AClass( )
            {   foo( ); }
        };
    }
}


namespace {
    namespace B {
        void foo() { std::cout << "B::<unnamed>::foo()" << std::endl; }

        using namespace A;

        class   BClass
        {
        public:
            BClass( )
            {   foo( ); }

            ~BClass( )
            {   A::foo( );  }
        };
    }
}

int main( )
{
    A::foo( );
    B::foo( );
    foo( );

    A::AClass   a;
    B::BClass   b;

    return  0;
}

Compiler will prefer the closest foo( ) unless explicitly specified. So BClass constructor calls B::foo( ) even having a using namespace A on it. To call A::foo( ) on BClass destructor, the call must be explicitly qualified.

A::<unnamed>::foo()
B::<unnamed>::foo()
::foo()
A::<unnamed>::foo()
B::<unnamed>::foo()
A::<unnamed>::foo()

Maybe it become clearer if we think in nested named namespaces and how the argument-dependent will be solved. The olny difference will be an implicit using on the unnamed ones, but it won't change the compiler preference.