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

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-03 12:27:00

Joel de Guzman wrote:
> Robert Ramey wrote:

> What's wrong with having one of the interested parties host it?
> What's wrong with having it in, say, boost/serialization/support
> and have it included by the other library using it? Sure, that
> is not ideal, but that practice ultimately avoids having boost
> detail crowded.

I never found anything wrong with it.  I think what happend
was that the author of another library - program options -
felt at the time that depending on something which was sort
of an implementation detail in another library (that was new
at the time) was a risky idea.  So he made a local copy. I
think this was very reasonable in this situation.  But objections
were raised about having duplicated code so that's how we
got here.  I don't think you cat get around the fact that either
something is shared and public, or its private - it can't be both.
if its the former it has to have the things that shared/public things
have, documentation, rationale, stable interface etc.

Robert Ramey
>
> Regards,