Re: [boost] namespace naming -- the question to moderators

From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-07 14:04:03

Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
> "Tobias Schwinger" <tschwinger_at_[hidden]> wrote
> 
> 
>>Jeff Flinn wrote:
>>
>>>Tobias Schwinger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>This kind of unnamed namespace can be handled correctly by both MS
>>>>>compilers, with respect to pch, but I don't believe it satisfies the
>>>>>Boost naming convention.  OTOH, if no other solution is found, this
>>>>>is the only way we can achieve typeof compliance with pch, while
>>>>>still staying in the unnamed namespace.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>MPL introduces a namespace called "::mpl_" (note: root namespace) by
>>>
>>>
>>>FYI: IIRC, there was a recent post where explicit leading "::" in
> 
> refering
> 
>>>to namespaces caused problems in atleast one compiler.
>>
>>Actually I thought I'd be talking to human beings rather than a compiler,
> 
> here ;-).
> 
> :-)
> 
> FWIW, I don't think we need this for typeof.  All we need is to define some
> templates in, for example, <unnamed>::boost_typeof, and then refer to them
> as boost_typeof::blah.  
> 

Hmmm... That's about what I was talking about.

Figuring that "boost_typeof" (other than "_mpl") is a name that's pretty unlikely to collide with user code, you probably won't need a configuration macro for its name.

> No leading "::" is needed.

And (so joking doesn't obscure the message of my previous post) there is no "::" in the code! I used "::" simply to denote the namespace lives in the root namespace :-)...

Regards,

Tobias