From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-30 11:52:51
Neil Mayhew wrote:
> On 2008-05-26 05:22, Beman Dawes wrote:
>> There's an updated version available in the file vault. Changes include:
>> * Use of namespaces to simulate C++0x scoped enums.
>> * Addition of operator= for improved efficiency.
>> * Updated docs, including new FAQ entries.
>> * Jamfile.v2 added.
>> See http://tinyurl.com/4bswsh
>> Does this look ready for formal review? Comments appreciated!
> The 0.8 version looks good to me, except for two things:
> 1. As I commented earlier about the name:
>> ... there is already an endian.hpp elsewhere in boost and I think it
>> would be easy for people to miss this endian, and never discover its
> When I was searching to see if boost had something like this, the great
> majority of the hits were for the existing boost/detail/endian.hpp,
> which wasn't what I was hoping for. It doesn't seem good to me to have
> two headers in boost with the same file name, even if they are in
> different directories. The only good solution I can see is to rename
> detail/endian.hpp to detail/endianness.hpp, which is more descriptive,
> IMHO, but would probably break a lot of existing client code. Although
> maybe clients include detail/ headers at their own risk?
Use of detail/ headers is certainly "at-your-own-risk".
My quick take on detail/endian.hpp is that it should be moved to
boost/config/platform, but John Maddock is the config maintainer so that
would be his call.
As far as boost/integer/endian.hpp goes, I plan to stick with that name.
> 2. As mentioned in other posts, the implementation of operators using
> <boost/operators.hpp> needs to be reconsidered.
Yes. On my do list.
> Thanks, Beman, for your work in getting this moving again.
Thank you and everyone else responding to this thread for all your ideas
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk