Re: [boost] question regarding potential boost namespace collisions

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-24 17:31:22

At 06:40 PM 2/23/2002, rameysb wrote:

 >I am currently putting the finishing touches on a library I hope to
 >submit to boost.org.
 >
 >I studying the other boost libraries it seems that all the library
 >user callable funcations are added to the namepace boost while
 >private functions are added to namespace boost::detail
 >
 >How does one know that the names he chooses don't collide with any
 >others used in the library?  Must one check the whole library?  If
 >one wants to use a common name such as "save" are subsquent library
 >builders bared from using it  on penalty of creating a collision?
 >
 >Suppose I am creating a library for object serialization
 >called "serialize"  Would it not be convenient to use
 >
 >namespace serialize for public interfaces and
 >namespace serialize::detail for private ones.
 >
 >users would then do one of the following:
 >
 >    boost::serialize::save(....
 >
 >or
 >
 >using namespace boost::serialize;
 >
 >    save(...
 >
 >
 >Am I missing something obvious here?  Has this question come up
 >before and be resolved to the current system - if so what is
 >the rational.

As Boost gets larger, we are becoming more sensitive to the problem.  Thus 
the I/O state library just accepted puts names in a sub-namespace (like 
your serialize example) under boost.

My rule-of-thumb has been to use a sub-namespace if (1) your library has a 
lot of names and/or (2) the names are likely to clash with other libraries. 
Some others feel a library should almost always go in a sub-namespace.

--Beman