RE: [boost] boost subnamespaces proposal.

From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-03 05:57:27

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hubert HOLIN [mailto:Hubert.Holin_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 10:36 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] boost subnamespaces proposal.

> 		I propose the creation of namespace ::boost::math .

I agree with this.

> 		I propose the creation of namespace
> ::boost::math::special_functions .

I'm not clear on the pros and cons of subdividing the space for constants,
functions, nions and ???

There seem to be some subtle things here, especially for templated things.

So I think sticking to one subdivision for a start seems prudent - I suspect
it is easier to add more subdivisions than backtrack?

Paul

PS I have not given up with the collection of constants.  Concluding that
one size doesn;t fit all, I plan to create ALL the packaging types
automatically and, with Boosters support, see which prove useful and
popular.  I have partly been waiting for the dust to settle on the namespace
issue.

PPS I still feel that we should be able to offer more math functions,
especially the stats essentials like normal, F, chisq, Poisson
distributions. I feel that the code is OK, but needs santitising for C++,
BUT needs ACM to give permission to agree that the final product can be
licence free.
Anyone any contacts or suggestions for following this up?