From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-19 08:58:58
From: "Marcin Kalicinski" <kalita_at_[hidden]>
> > 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
> > boost::detail.
> 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.
The point you make is valid, but the problem is that those
headers don't belong to a library. Still, detail/enable_if.hpp
could fabricate detail::enable_if or something like that.
-- Rob Stewart stewart_at_[hidden] Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk