Re: [boost] [proto] new version, breaking changes

From: Hartmut Kaiser (hartmut.kaiser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-21 17:47:25

Eric Niebler wrote:

> I thought about that, and it's not unreasonable, either. It 
> might cause less confusion. However, the different or_'s will 
> often be used together, making qualification a requirement. 
> Compare the following (assumes using namespace proto;):
> 
>    struct MyGrammar
>      : control::or_<
>            operators::or_<_,_>
>          , operators::bitor_<_,_>
>        >
>    {};
> 
> to
> 
>    struct MyGrammar
>      : or_<
>            logical_or<_,_>
>          , bitwise_or<_,_>
>        >
>    {};

I don't mind having it the first way. Explicit is always better than
implicit. If that's too longish somebody could always use a using namespace
specification for whatever variant it may fit...

My main concern is name compatibility to mpl.

Regards Hartmut