From: Joerg Walter (jhr.walter_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-28 00:26:22
----- Original Message -----
From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>; <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 1:22 AM
Subject: RE: [boost] uBLAS formal review
> 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
> 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
> >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.
Ok, we'll synchronize file path and namespace. Only open question: should we
really prefix our preprocessor macros with BOOST_NUMERIC_UBLAS?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk