Subject: Re: [boost] Name of namespace detail
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-13 11:34:04
Mateusz Loskot wrote:
> Inspired by Jean-Louis question about what to put to namespace detail, I
> would be interested learning about rationale of name of the namespace
> detail (sometimes details or impl too).
> Recently, I've participated in a very interesting discussion, on ACCU
> members mailing list, about prefixes and suffixes like Base or _base nad
> Impl or _impl, as misused, irrelevant and confusing, meaningless, etc.
> For example, how to properly name elements of PIMPL idiom and similar.
> During the discussion I suggested that 'detail' is a good name for
> namespace dedicated to implementation details being not a part of public
> interface of a component. I got answer that it as the same issues (it's
> meaningless) as Impl etc.
> It raised some questions for myself, being interested in improving my
> craft, I would like to learn better about the name of namespace detail.
> I use detail name myself. Any better names for bucket with
> implementation details?
FWIW, I personally tend to use "aux", from "auxiliary". It is short
enough, so it doesn't bloat symbol names too much, and it gives the idea
that something internal is inside (especially, if the namespace is
IMO, all the naming-related arguments are highly subjective, and thus
are unlikely to come to a common agreement. If you choose the name that
is clear enough, documented and has the close meaning to the existing
similar names out in the wild, then your choice is justified enough
already. Speaking of Boost, the "detail" namespace is commonly used for
implementation details, same as "aux" (or variations thereof), so this
is a good choice if you're writing a new library for Boost.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk