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

From: Andrey Semashev (andysem_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-03 23:15:11

Joel de Guzman wrote:
> Anthony Williams wrote:
>> Joel de Guzman <joel_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>
>>> * Non-core libraries may place a single consolidated convenience 
>>>   header in boost/, forwarding to files of the form 
>>>   boost/<libraryname>/<header>.hpp.  Regardless, their documented
>>>   public components are not in boost/ or namespace boost::
>> What about boost.thread? Though the "general use" header is boost/thread.hpp,
>> and the other headers are in boost/thread/xyz.hpp, the public interface is and
>> always has been in namespace boost::, and changing this now would be a
>> breaking change.
> 
> Seems that if thread is a non-core library then it indeed breaks the
> "standard practice". I don't think a breaking change is a good idea
> though. I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on this.

Maybe the library should reside in its own sub-namespace and then this
namespace should be imported into boost:: with using directive. This
import would be optional, depending on some macro, and would be declared
deprecated.