From: John Maddock (John_Maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-11-16 07:07:13
>It would be worth documenting that even given conforming compilers, using
>the namespace reduces the likelihood of warnings when porting the code.
>Also, it should be clear that the separate namespace only provides value
>when used in a header. IMHO, example 1 should start out by specifying the
>bottom line recommended usage: namespace (not global) scope for headers
>namespace (including global) scope for non-headers.
>There is one other suggestion I have thought of regarding the
>Turn the examples headings into use pattern headings. Currently, there is
>no normative definition of how static assert may be used. Can it be used
>an enum, for example? By looking at the code and thinking, you can
>that no, it cannot. It would be nice if the documentation lent itself to
>quickly answering these types of questions by providing a comprehensive
>listing of how static assert can be used. Really, it already does this;
>reclassifying the examples as defined usages would make this clear.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk