Re: function review

From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-06-14 09:06:02

--- In boost_at_y..., Douglas Gregor <gregod_at_c...> wrote:
> On Thursday 14 June 2001 07:13, you wrote:
> > I wonder whether the "detail" namespace should be replaced with
> > "function_detail" or "function::detail" whichever you prefer - I 
worry
> > about namespace clashes if everyone uses "detail".  Having said 
that if you
> > don't think that it's a problem then leave it for now.
> 
> Function has a lot of helper classes, so it probably should have 
its own 
> detail namespace.

This has been brought up before, and I thought the suggested 
alternative was boost::detail::library (in this case 
boost::detail::function)?
 
> > Like almost everyone else I'm not keen on boost::nil, personally 
I would
> > just leave it out, but if you really want it, then renaming to 
something
> > else seems to be in order (to avoid the mac problem).
> 
> I really like 'nil' (because I dislike OO-style interfaces for 
simple 
> components), but I'll go with the general consensus.

Just a personal comment here.  I like the idea of "nil", but I'm 
afraid that there are some hidden dangers that have not been 
discovered yet.  I'd prefer to leave "nil" out in a first release, 
insuring a safe interface for now, then after existing practice with 
the concept has been obtained consider introducing "nil" back into 
Boost.Function.

Bill Kempf