Re: [boost] [log] Comments

Subject: Re: [boost] [log] Comments
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-16 13:00:51

On 03/16/2010 07:04 PM, Stewart, Robert wrote:
> Andrey Semashev wrote:
>> On 03/16/2010 02:13 PM, Stewart, Robert wrote:
>>> Steven Watanabe wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is there a good reason that the same attr can't be both a
>>>> formatter and a filter?
>>>
>>> If not, it would probably make things more readable to have
>>> "attr_formatter" and "attr" anyway, though I'd prefer to see
>>> "attr" spelled out in each case.
>>
>> formatters::attr_formatter looks too much for me. And it's attr
>> for shortness. I think it's expansion is obvious enough.
>
> Given code within the formatters namespace, having a using directive
> in force, or eliminating the "formatters" namespace as suggested
> elsewhere, the repetition to which you are objecting would be masked
> or eliminated.

I think, namespaces do better job in categorizing things than name 
mangling. As noted, namespaces are much more flexible in possible writings.

> When one sees "attr" in the documentation or code, it won't be
> confused with "attr_formatter," which is possible when both are named
> alike unless they are always namespace scoped.

The docs always state the name qualified. Also, most of the time it's 
quite obvious from the context, whether it's a formatter or a filter, 
even if the qualification wasn't there.