Re: [boost] Objections to removing the old smart pointer class templates?

From: Darin Adler (darin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-30 15:08:28

On 1/30/02 11:38 AM, "Alisdair Meredith"
<alisdair.meredith_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Is the intent for users to continue accessing the smart pointers through the
> single header, or to migrate to using the individual headers for the pointers
> used?
> 
> If it intended to support the latter, then the top level naming makes sense.
> Otherwise, I'd go with the detail-folder.

The intent is the latter. I suggest migrating to use of the individual
headers.

> I had taken the top-level name as an indication we were intended to use the
> headers directly.

That's an argument for the top-level names. I also think it's nice to have
the names match the namespace nesting, which is another argument for
top-level names.

    -- Darin