From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-26 01:28:18
Gennaro Prota wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:42:05 -0300, Fernando Cacciola
> <fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I take you disagree. Can you explain why?
> Even if it happens to be shared between three or four libraries it
> still doesn't belong to the root dir just for that. You could probably
> agree to have it in detail/, but that's going to give problems in the
> long run in my opinion, probably mitigated if you insert a big comment
> along the lines of "Caution: this component is shared between x, y and
> z and shall keep the following behavior and interface. Only apply
> workarounds if they are needed for all of x, y and z, etc.". I'd
> suggest discussing that with the authors of the libraries you want to
> share it with. If you all agree that the benefits outweigh the cost I
> don't have strong objections (not that I don't have ;-))
FWIW, it can't go under the detail folder and/or namespace. That's how I
initially did it but someone noticed that "none" and "none_t" are part of
the public interface for optional<>, so these must be at some "user level"
IOW, the implementation of "none_t" and "none" are a detail, but _they_ are
They can be considered general or specific, which is different, so if they
don't go into the root folder they must go into /optional (if they are
considered specific), or /utility if not.
But then I don't see much of a difference between the root folder and
/utility for this.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk