From: Darin Adler (darin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-30 15:08:28
On 1/30/02 11:38 AM, "Alisdair Meredith"
> 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
> 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
> 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk