From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-24 16:07:54
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 11:17:24 -0700, Jonathan Turkanis wrote
> Daryle Walker wrote:
> > On 12/20/04 8:58 PM, "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]>
> >> 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.
Yes, combining the docs at this point would be cumbersome. It would be nice
if the docs had links to the other 'related libraries' so that people see the
> > Maybe the latter. (And don't forget that the introductory page would
> > include the format library, which also shares "boost::io".)
> > Eventually, the state-savers, the new iostreams, and the format
> > libraries could all switch to Doxygen & BoostBook
> Okay, the latter solution would be fine with me. How would you
> recommend the docs and tests be organized. One way would be to put
> the existing material for the iostreams library in the directory
I sort of think that libs/iostreams would be less confusing because there is
no dependency between the iostreams library and the original boost::io. But
it really could be either way...
> Also, we should probably get Jeff Garland's view on this.
As for the overall question of the directory structure matching the namespace,
that would be nice, but it doesn't seem practical at this point. There are
already many violations of this in boost. So I'm fine with the directory
being iostreams and the namespace being io.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk