From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-09 15:01:42
christopher diggins <cdiggins_at_[hidden]> writes:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]>
>> I think I've developed an adaquate specification; I'm in the process of
>> modifying the current implementatin so that it satisfies the
> Great, I am really looking forward to it.
> I just wanted to go on the record as saying I am now just as happy with
> hand-written interfaces as machine written, at least for the forseeable
>> p.s. BIL is no longer an acronym, it's an ordinary word -- just like
>> OLE was for
>> a while. Or, maybe I should say it stands for "BIL Isn't Legit (yet)"
> In light of recent (valid) concerns brought up by David, I would like to
> have the next version of the BIL outside of the Boost namespace and not in a
> folder named Boost. I hope this isn't too much to ask? This might in fact be
> a good practice for all new proposed and experimental libraries.
I have been trying to say that I really think this is overkill. For a
large library fixing the namespace could be problematic, and we won't
discover potential integration problems and naming conflicts until
much later. You're free to do whatever you want, of course, but I
oppose adopting this as a Boost convention.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk