From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-27 18:22:07
At 05:45 PM 6/27/2002, Powell, Gary wrote:
> Should the include files be "filename.hpp" ? to fit the rest of boost.
I'd really like to see us stick to the .hpp convention. Short term is can
be hard on a developer used to some other scheme, but long term it is a big
consistency win if all boost libraries follow the same form.
>Also shouldn't the include path be
>"boost/numerics/filename.hpp" ? doesn't that prevent more name conflicts?
>It's been so long since I've had this issue come up.
> Namespace, I'm torn whether it should be boost::numeric:ublas.... or
>boost::numeric::... as there may be more "vector" and matrix
>implementations coming along and we should be able to accomodate them.
It seems that Boost continues to attract high-quality numerics
libraries. And that in turn will attract still more...
That, coupled with the tendency for each major library to have
"exception.hpp", etc., increases the chance of name clashes. Thus give
serious consideration to "boost/numerics/ublas/filename.hpp" and namespace
Then, to ease use:
namespace ub = boost::numeric::ublas;
or whatever. It helps to always use the same alias.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk