From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-27 20:28:31
Joel de Guzman wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>>> That goes the same for the boost namespace. IMO, we need a clear
>>> policy on what goes there. Lest, we'll have it filled up and
>>> polluted with lotsa stuff before we know it.
>> Yes, well, now we have a precedent that violates what is, IMO, the
>> only reasonable policy. That makes it a little harder to make the
>> policy official. But anyway, I have a strong suspicion that you and I
>> substantially agree on that policy, so I would be very happy if you'd
>> write something up. Then we have something concrete to argue about
> Ok, I'll take this one. I see you've got the "standard practice"
> defined in another post. I'll try to collect all the relevant
> information from the current discussions and collect them into
> a document.
I've collected all the relevant information from the discussions so
far. If there are more counter-arguments (Robert?) please post
them now. I'll post my recommendation (subject to discussion)
in the coming days.
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk