From: Marcin Kalicinski (kalita_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-19 08:21:36
> I can't speak for all of these, but some of them are libraries that
> don't have their own namespace (e.g. enable_if). As long as enable_if
> is directly in namespace boost, it makes sense that its detail is in
I don't subscribe to that. I think details of every distinct library should
be in a separate namespace. The reason is detail stuff is not documented and
changes frequently, so no library writer can actually add safely any new
name to boost::detail. This means that boost::detail should not exist at
all, unless it is used only by 1 library. Detail name clashes can be very
frustrating because they only manifest when certain header file combinations
are included into one translation unit.
While libraries residing in boost::libraryname can use
boost::libraryname::detail, the ones that are in boost namespace directly
could safely use someting like boost::libraryname_detail.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk