Boost logo

Boost :

From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-06-28 13:22:53

Matthias Troyer wrote on 6/28/2000 1:24 PM

>Ian Bruntlett wrote:
>> > Dave Abrahams wrote:
>> > >I just happened to take a look at the docs for the random library,
>> > >and the fact that we are documenting things we're putting in the
>> > >detail namespace hit me like a cold slap in the face ;\
>> > >
>> > >I thought detail was supposed to be reserved for implementation
>> > >details of no interest to users...?
>> Surely its of interest to people porting the library?
>A I see it the templated classes for RNGs in the
>detail namespace are of interest to people
>implementing additional RNGs, but not to people
>just using the library. A documentation thus
>seems to be appropriate, but maybe we can have it
>separated from the rest of the documentation?

Perhaps those classes should go in boost::additional_rng instead of
boost::detail? This seems analgous to private and protected specifiers
for classes.

Another possibility:

namespace boost
     namespace random // or whatever
          // public interface - document
          // ...
          namespace rng
               // a protected interface - document
          namespace detail
               // private stuff - don't document
     using namespace random;

(these comments are applicable to more than just random)


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