Date: 1999-08-06 12:54:12
Email seemed somewhat boring, until Ed Brey wrote:
> It seems to me that boost::extended_numeric_limits<type>::constant_max is
> an aweful lot of typing. What do others think about calling the class
> simply boost::numeric_limits?
> This is a general issue. If boost wishes to extend the functionality of
> a std class, is it appropriate to place an identically named class in
> the boost namespace? I think this would be fine, so long as it is
> understand that in the boost namespace one finds the "boost version of
> the class", which is extended and (optionally?) backward-compatible with
> the std (or other) class.
I disagree, but only because I want to use namespace std and namespace boost
in my programs, and identical names would cause name lookup problems.
I think we should avoid naming conflicts whenever possible (especially with
namespace std), so that users can write programs with using-directives for
both namespaces. On the other hand, we can't be paranoid about the naming
conflicts, either, since we _are_ in our own namespace.
Valentin, I belive, used "xnumeric_traits" for his extended numeric traits
class, which does not conflict with any identifiers in namespace std, and is
not too long to type.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk