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

From: Bulygin, Sergey (Bulygin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-10 04:01:39

Even from my light boost.typeof experience, i know that this problem with MS 
precompiled headers is a show-stopper for comfortable boost.typeof usage.

This is why I am actively vote for this fix.

Best Regards,
Sergey Bulygin

"Arkadiy Vertleyb" <vertleyb_at_[hidden]> wrote in message news:<e174i9$8aj$1_at_[hidden]>...
> "Tobias Schwinger" <tschwinger_at_[hidden]> wrote
> > Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
> > > 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
> :-)...
> 
> So, we seem to be in total agreement :-)
> 
> My only concern was that this violates the Boost naming convention, but I
> think
> getting things to work is more important.  Besides, you pointed to a
> precedent.  I also
> know another one -- bind placeholders.
> 
> I will not be available next week, but after that, unless somebody suggests
> a better alternative,
> I will implement this (I hope CVS is stable at that point, and we are not
> yet in the code freeze).
> 
> Regards,
> Arkadiy
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>