Re: [boost] [RFC][threads] Header/namespace policy draft

From: Anthony Williams (anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-03 10:36:07

"John Maddock" <john_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Joel de Guzman wrote:
>> If the thread library's move function is undocumented, then it has
>> no business being in the root boost namespace but in boost::detail.
>> If indeed that is the case, I consider it a bug that should be fixed.
>> We should be more vigilant in the review period on such violations.
>> More stringent requirements should be put in place for core libraries.
>> We should try to restrict as much as possible what goes into the
>> boost root namespace and directory. I think it's best to add:
>>
>>     Only reviewed and documented components of a core library may be
>>     placed in the root boost namespace. Violations are considered bugs
>>     that must be fixed.
>>
>> in our core libraries policies.
>>
>> ((I did a quick search in boost thread's docs and indeed move is not
>> documented.))
>
> 100% agreement from me: "move" is such a common name that we can't afford to 
> pollute namespace boost with it: unless we really mean to of course :-)
>
> Unfortunately the Boost.Thread docs aren't up to date, so I'm not sure what 
> Anthony intended here: Anthony?

Currently, the boost::move in question is an implementation detail of
thread. It is an oversight that it is in the boost namespace and not the
detail namespace.

However, I did post a message asking for a fast-track review of it so that it
could become a documented part of boost. The only response I got was "there's
another implementation in the sandbox".

Anthony
-- 
Anthony Williams
Just Software Solutions Ltd - http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk
Registered in England, Company Number 5478976.
Registered Office: 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL