Re: [boost] Boost Evolution

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Evolution
From: Belcourt, Kenneth (kbelco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-11 13:06:17

On Oct 11, 2010, at 11:02 AM, David Abrahams wrote:

> At Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:20:33 -0600,
> Belcourt, Kenneth wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Oct 11, 2010, at 6:54 AM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 11, 2010, at 6:42 AM, "Stewart, Robert"
>>> <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If all new libraries use lib_detail rather than detail, the
>>>> problem just shifts, unless you mean <lib>_detail, where "<lib>"
>>>> is replaced by the library name.  Still, as I've shown, that
>>>> simply mixes paradigms making it a little more surprising, I
>>>> should think.  If we can establish that pattern as desirable,
>>>> then new libraries can adopt it and it will be expected, of
>>>> course.
>>>
>>> Don't forget you can always use locally-defined namespace aliases,
>>> e.g. namespace brd = boost::ratios::detail defined within
>>> boost::ratios, to avoid such collisions.
>>
>> I haven't been following this discussion closely but is there any way
>> to use namespaces for version control along the lines of what
>> Stroupstrup mentioned in D&E?  It's been quite a while since I looked
>> at it but perhaps with suitable modification it could help address
>> some of these concerns.
>
> I think we have some new feature in C++0x that makes it “more
> possible.”  Oh, yeah:
> http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/C++0xFAQ.html#inline-namespace
>
> I take this as an indicator that what we have in C++03 isn't quite
> optimal, but maybe we can do something adequate.

Ah, nice. Thanks for the link.

-- Noel