From: Jeff Garland (azswdude_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-19 09:50:44
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Jeff Garland wrote:
>> As I said above we have some boost specific concerns that we may need to
>> address in our implementation. I think I'll want to put the new stuff in
>> new namespace -- do we have anything for 0x yet? Maybe boost::cpp0x or
> One thing that came out of the LWG's discussion of N2615 was a strong (10
> for, 0 against) preference for putting the clock/duration/time_point stuff
> in a sub-namespace. While the LWG reserves the right to make future
> sub-namespace decisions on a case-by-case basis, there was strong support
> for sub-namespaces for specific problem domains, particularly those with a
> lot of very common names inside. Perhaps that can guide your choices.
That's good to hear. The TR2 date-time stuff is really dangerous without a
> Hum... I think we should follow the Boost TR1 practice, which provides the
> actual declarations and definitions in a boost:: sub-namespace, and then
> provides a <boost/tr1/whatever> header that hoists the names into namespace
> std::tr1 with usings.
> So in this case, we would provide a <boost/cpp0x/chrono> header with names
> in namespace std::chrono. The names would be hoisted into that namespace via
> usings from a boost namespace such as your suggested boost::cpp0x::date_time
> or boost::date_time::cpp0x or boost::date_time::chrono or whatever.
> How does that sound?
Works for me.
> Perhaps all of us working on C++0x stuff could work on a common branch, say
Do we need a branch? Since much of the initial stuff is additions I think a
big chunk can just go on the main branch -- I'm just worried it will be hard
to get tests if we go to a branch.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk