Re: [boost] boost subnamespaces proposal.

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-28 20:04:08

At 06:47 PM 6/28/2001, David Abrahams wrote:

 >I think we need to think carefully about library issues 225 and 229 when
 >proceeding down the path of defining generalized free math functions.

I'm sorry, maybe it is too close to bedtime, but I couldn't relate your 
discussion, interesting though it was, to Hubert's namespace proposal.

Or was it more a case of a train of thought that got kicked off by his 
proposal, but doesn't actually bear on whether or not we should have a 
namespace boost::math with sub-namespace boost::math::special_functions?

Confused in Virginia,

--Beman