|
|
Boost : |
Subject: Re: [boost] Name of namespace detail
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-13 04:20:11
Joel de Guzman wrote:
> Mateusz Loskot wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Inspired by Jean-Louis question about what to put to namespace detail, I
>> would be interested learning about rationale of name of the namespace
>> detail (sometimes details or impl too).
>>
>> Recently, I've participated in a very interesting discussion, on ACCU
>> members mailing list, about prefixes and suffixes like Base or _base nad
>> Impl or _impl, as misused, irrelevant and confusing, meaningless, etc.
>> For example, how to properly name elements of PIMPL idiom and similar.
>>
>> During the discussion I suggested that 'detail' is a good name for
>> namespace dedicated to implementation details being not a part of public
>> interface of a component. I got answer that it as the same issues (it's
>> meaningless) as Impl etc.
>
> Why? Could you please provide details on what their responses are?
The discussion was too long I think (archives are not public) but
generally the conclusion was that impl and base suffixes do not carry
much information.
For example that I put under discussion, the PIMPL-based FileReader
using Impl suffixes etc.:
class Reader
{
const std::auto_ptr<ReaderBase> pimpl_;
public:
// ...
};
class ZipReaderImpl : public ReaderBase {...};
class BZipReaderImpl : public ReaderBase {...};
we came to the improved version:
class FileReader
{
class Body;
const std::auto_ptr<Body> handle;
public:
// ...
};
class ZipFileReader : public FileReader::Body {...};
class BZipFileReader : public FileReader::Body {...};
I agree that the latter is more verbose telling what is what,
and placing elements better regarding concepts it uses (handle-body).
Given that, namespace detail was judged as similarly not much
informative as Impl and Base suffix.
On the other hand, all this is based on actual convention used in a
project. If team members agree and understand what 'detail' means,
then I can't see anything wrong with using it.
Though, namespace private_ (with underscore), sounds a little bit better.
I hope it clarifies the point.
Best regards,
-- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk