From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-03 00:03:17
David Abrahams wrote:
>> My concern is that this policy does not seem to be scalable.
>> What's to prevent someone from adding hundreds of small things
>> (typedefs, enums, small classes, etc.) in boost detail?
> The policy does. It says you only do that when they are in fact needed
> by multiple libraries. And anyway, what's wrong with having hundreds
> of small things in boost detail?
--The same reasons why we use sub-namespaces and sub-directories.
Multiply that with the number of Boost developers past and
present. The single boost::detail namespace can become utterly
OK, you have good points. I won't argue this any more. My only
concern is a crowded boost::detail namespace in the future. Perhaps
what we can do is subdivide boost::detail in the future when
the need arises.
-- 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