From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-03 08:33:52
on Mon Dec 03 2007, Joel de Guzman <joel-AT-boost-consulting.com> wrote:
> 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.
That sounds entirely sensible. Unlike public interfaces, we can
refactor boost/detail as much as we want without breaking any code
because we have access to all the code that depends on boost/detail.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk