From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-23 17:25:09
on 6/23/01 10:40 AM, Beman Dawes at bdawes_at_[hidden] wrote:
> At 04:16 AM 6/23/2001, Jens Maurer wrote:
>> The special functions, octonions, and quaternions by Hubert Holin
>> are now added to the CVS.
>> They're in a new sub-directory libs/math (and boost/math), expected
>> to contain other libraries in the future. However, I just noticed
>> that the namespace is still boost::octonion (and not
>> boost::math::octonion). Is this something to worry about regarding
> It seems to me namespaces should follow an "optimal branching" strategy
> similar to the one John Maddock has described for libraries. The hierarchy
> should neither be so flat that there are large numbers of entries at each
> level, nor so tall and deep that there are only one entry at many levels.
> So boost::math seems right to me for the 1st and 2nd levels. If octonion's
> introduce many names then there should be a third level -
> boost::math::octonion, but if they only introduce one or two names, there
> shouldn't be a third level. (Sorry, I don't remember if that is the case
> or not for that library.)
I think that all three parts of the library should be in the "boost::math"
namespace without any further sub-namespaces. A lot of the functions are
general in math usage, and not specific to quaternions nor octonions.
> We haven't really been following an "optimal branching" policy for the
> boost namespace in the past, but as the number of names grows, we need to
> agree on such a policy and start applying it regularly, I think.
> If we can agree, we should also add the namespace policy to our
> Requirements and Guidelines.
-- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT mac DOT com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk