Boost logo

Boost :

From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-28 19:58:32

[Sorry for the extensive quoting -- I couldn't find anything to snip]

Jeff Garland wrote:
> 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 options.
>>> 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
>> libs/io/iostreams.
> 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...

After I wrote the above I started to think what would be involved in moving back
to boost/io -- and it's not appealing. In particular, it would make it harder to
paste the library into the 1.32 distribution, and it would force the current
users, who are sending me valuable bug reports, to modify their code yet again.

>> 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.

Okay, if there are no objections, this is what I'll do.

> Jeff


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at