Re: [boost] [signals]question regarding header placement

From: Frank Mori Hess (frank.hess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-03 11:45:47

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Monday 03 March 2008 09:09 am, Doug Gregor wrote:
> We didn't think as carefully about header (or namespace) placement
> when the Signals library went into Boost, so there are some
> inconsistencies. visit_each and last_value were reviewed with Signals,
> but went into boost/ (and namespace boost) because they were
> considered to be general mechanisms that could be reused. visit_each,
> for example, needs to be supported by a few other libraries (like
> Bind) to be useful, so it didn't belong in Signals.
>
> As for boost/signal.hpp: it's in boost/ because boost::signal is in
> namespace boost. In retrospect, I should have put everything in
> namespace boost::signals (and headers in boost/signals), but back in
> 2002 we didn't have quite as much clutter in the top-level boost
> namespace/directory.

thread_safe_signals has a similar header/namespace layout to boost.signals, 
since I figured staying as close to the original as possible would ease 
acceptance.  But perhaps I should rearrange things to be more in line with 
current boost policies?  And by the way, who do I need to send a campaign 
donation to in order to get a review manager? :)

- -- 
Frank
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHzCtI5vihyNWuA4URAmvxAJsEUHlMkXAPqrq7WDBjhW5xly+JDACgrI1Y
n3JObH1PkXwlr+tHwSQfh/Y=
=w9+O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----