Boost logo

Boost :

From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-07-15 19:07:09

At 12:00 PM 7/15/99 -0500, Andy Glew wrote:

>> > + namespaces - hah! it's fixed now!
>> >
>> Actually, not.
>> Well, the fix may be partial. That was the problem I had with
>> ... The problem goes away if you take
>> everything out of the boost namespace.
>So this provides a more specific question or instance of the
variation problem:
>Should Boost avoid using namespaces, because they (still) seem to be
>broken with one of the most popular almost standards conforming

No, IMO. Namespaces are mainstream. Most compilers have had them
for at least a couple of years and/or releases now. There have been
no complaints from any Boost users that I know of, and all the
current Boost libraries use namespaces.

>Should Boost provide varieties which pollute the global namespace,
as well
>as ones which do not, e.g.:
> boost/no-namespace/operators.h:
> ...
> boost/operators.h:
> namespace boost {
> #include "boost/no-namespace/operators.h"
> }
>Or should we wait for (or hope that one of us gets off our duff and
does it
>for everyone) GCS/G++'s namespace implementation to be fixed?
>The various brokennesses of namespaces were one of the things that
>me most about EGCS/G++. IMHO, namespaces are essential to well
>libraries that can interoperate.



------------------------------------------------------------------------ home: - Simplifying group communications

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at