From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-09-06 08:28:22
However we may discourage it, though, "using namespace boost" is much more
likely than "using namespace boost::details". Also, Koenig lookup may
proceed through names that users touch, though I'm not certain that applies
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Rodgers" <mark.rodgers_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 3:43 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] namespace "details"
> > Problem with that is that you end up reserving the names lambda, etc.
> > in boost.
> > What about boost::detail::lambda, etc.?
> > Reserving a namespace name in detail is much less impactful (is that
> > a word?)
> Umm, I'm not quite sure why. Both reserve the exactly one name in
> one of the two namespaces we have currently use - boost and
> boost::detail. I would have said both were equally "impactful".
> Given there was also a suggestion that boost::random (I think) should
> be used as a "protected" namespace (containing stuff used by people
> extending the library, but not general users), it seems appropriate
> for each library to reserve boost::<library-name>, and then for
> truly private stuff to go in boost::<library-name>::detail.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk