[boost] Re: Namespace for boost integers

From: Valentin Bonnard (Bonnard.V_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-08-18 07:56:50

Beman Dawes wrote:

> Someone, Valentin I think, 

Yes

> previously suggested boost sub-namespaces,
> and I reacted negatively. 

Thank you for the different reaction: when I propose something, 
the answer is a clear no, when someone else proposes it, it's 
fine.

I know that it's a conspiracy against me.

> But technically, it is the addition of "using namespace
> integer_types;" bringing the sub-namespace names into namespace boost
> which sways me.  This gives the users great freedom of choice.
> Including the choice of ignoring the sub-namespace completely; the
> follow still work:
> 
>    using namespace boost;
>    ...
>    int_least8_t myvar;
> 
>    using boost::int_least8_t;
>    ...
>    int_least8_t myvar;
> 
>    ...
>    boost::int_least8_t myvar;
> 
> That means that we could go back and introduce sub-namespaces to all
> of boost per your proposal without breaking existing code.  Always a
> plus.

> What do others think?  Ed's proposal makes most sense if applied to
> all boost libraries, so we need a strong consensus before proceeding.

My previous policy was:

namespace ValentinBonnard {
namespace LibraryName { 
// library names I use are:
//   Utils: utilities
//   NumericalTypes: the choosers 
//   AbstractGraphicalInterfaceLibrary: a GUI library (project)
//   MultiThread (project)
//   Meta: lists and arithmetic as compile time computations
//   STL: STL components (containers, iterators, algorithms)
//   Graph: graph manipulation library

namespace FeatureName { 
// when using very short names
int i;
typedef char* p;
}

// normal code
}

Currently I add:

namespace boost {
    using ValentinBonnard::LibraryName::func_name1;
    using ValentinBonnard::LibraryName::func_name2;
    using ValentinBonnard::LibraryName::class_name;
}

-- 
Valentin Bonnard