Subject: Re: [boost] namespace boost?
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-15 23:26:08
At Sat, 15 Jan 2011 14:30:46 -0800,
Steven Watanabe wrote:
> On 1/15/2011 2:11 PM, Robert Ramey wrote:
> > vicente.botet wrote:
> >> You are right, and I forget often to replace this file, but usualy it
> >> doesn't changes to much. The ideal will be that this file include a
> >> all.hpp file included on the library directory. Other have proposed
> >> someting like
> >> #include<boost/flyweight/all.hpp>
> > or #include<boost/flyweight/include.hpp> for the convenience header.
> > actually, I might be ok with each library permitting ONE
> > #include<boost/flyweight.hpp> // convenience header.
> I favor this approach because it's already common practice.
> I don't consider any of the arguments against it that
> I've seen sufficient to justify going to something new.
Yeah, it's OK by me as well. If there's not going to be a collision
with boost/flyweight/xxx.hpp, then boost/flyweight.hpp isn't going to
collide either. And if it were to collide, we'd have bigger problems
than just a poor choice of header paths :-)
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk