From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-16 14:09:55
From: Andreas Huber <ah2003_at_[hidden]>
> Rob Stewart <stewart <at> sig.com> writes:
> > At the risk of discussing the bicycle shed, what about using the
> > scope resolution operator? That, at least, would not be
> > misconstrued by a copyeditor and would be in keeping with C++
> > syntax.
> I had that opinion also until I realized that some boost libraries (like e.g.
> smart_ptr, thread, etc.) do not reside in their own namespace. So, it would be
> confusing to write boost::thread or boost::smart_ptr when refering to one of
> these libraries in a book.
I'm confused. Those references to the libraries would be spelled
Boost::SmartPtr (or whatever) and Boost::Thread, right?
-- Rob Stewart stewart_at_[hidden] Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk