From: Gary Powell (Gary.Powell_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-07 16:31:00
> It seems to me that there is a useful distinction between larger libraries
> and smaller ones. It makes sense for larger libraries with lots of names
> to be in a sub-namespace. But for small libraries, particularly those of
> very general nature, having a nested namespace doesn't seem like it buys
> much. There are also the compiler issues with nested namespaces.
> Of course if you buy those arguments,
I'll buy it. ($0.02)
> it would mean libraries like the
> boost graph library should be in a nested namespace.
Most definitely graph should be in its own namespace.
boost:: very general stuff, useful across many domains, with few individual
names. (casting? type conversions?)
boost::libraryName big things like VTL, LL, Graph, python_c++, or things
with likely conflicts, like tuples, integer.hpp, graphics primitives.
boost::libraryName::details things specific to the library and not intended
for general use. (Those things that are separate belong in their own
library.) For a library to be accepted the details can be accepted with the
library and later proposed to be added as stand alone code.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk