Re: [boost] Boost Evolution

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Evolution
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-11 13:02:12

At Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:20:33 -0600,
Belcourt, Kenneth wrote:
> 
> 
> On Oct 11, 2010, at 6:54 AM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> 
> > On Oct 11, 2010, at 6:42 AM, "Stewart, Robert"  
> > <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> >> If all new libraries use lib_detail rather than detail, the
> >> problem just shifts, unless you mean <lib>_detail, where "<lib>"
> >> is replaced by the library name.  Still, as I've shown, that
> >> simply mixes paradigms making it a little more surprising, I
> >> should think.  If we can establish that pattern as desirable,
> >> then new libraries can adopt it and it will be expected, of
> >> course.
> >
> > Don't forget you can always use locally-defined namespace aliases,  
> > e.g. namespace brd = boost::ratios::detail defined within  
> > boost::ratios, to avoid such collisions.
> 
> I haven't been following this discussion closely but is there any way  
> to use namespaces for version control along the lines of what  
> Stroupstrup mentioned in D&E?  It's been quite a while since I looked  
> at it but perhaps with suitable modification it could help address  
> some of these concerns.

I think we have some new feature in C++0x that makes it “more
possible.”  Oh, yeah:
http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/C++0xFAQ.html#inline-namespace

I take this as an indicator that what we have in C++03 isn't quite
optimal, but maybe we can do something adequate.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com