From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-20 20:58:56
Daryle Walker wrote:
> On 12/10/04 2:44 AM, "Joaquín Mª López Muñoz" <joaquin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Hi Jonathan, some quick observations:
>> * Some of your includes still refer to <boost/io/...> instead of
>> <boost/iostreams/...> (most notably, the examples). Am I missing
> I looked at some code. Files are in the "boost/iostreams/..."
> directory, but the items are in the "boost::io::..." namespace.
> We're trying to keep the directory and namespace hierarchies in line
> so it's easy for users to find stuff. The policy started from the
> base header directory getting too many direct entries for easy
The main reason Jeff recommended that I switch to the "iostreams" directory,
IIRC, was that it would be difficult to merge our documentation: either the
state-savers would get lost as a small component of the iostreams library, or we
would have to have an introductory page with links to both libraries.
I would greatly prefer to use the namespace "boost::io" because:
(i) it is much shorter than "boost::iostreams"; while it is possible to use
an alias to shorten it, I'd hate to make users do this when there is a perfectly
suitable short name available.
(ii) there currently are not many declarations in the namespace "boost::io",
so there is not much chance of collisions
(iii) it is a more accurate discription of the library, since the core
infrastructure is independent of the standard iostreams library and might be
used without streams, e.g., for async i/o.
I also don't think finding the iostreams library or its namespace will be a
Therefore, unless there is a very convincing reason to enforce the policy that
namespaces match directories in this particular case, I'd like to use
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk