Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [ratio] namespace ratios
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-16 08:25:50


At Sun, 16 Jan 2011 12:15:43 +0100,
vicente.botet wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Before moving all the classes on Boost.Ratio from boost:: to
> boost::ratios:: I wanted to signal that Boost.Ratio follows the
> names on the C++0x standard and that these names where choosen to be
> used in the std context and that any class is prefixed by ratio_. If
> a specific ratios namespace were in their minds, I'm sure that they
> will not use the ratio_add<> but just add<>. Please let me know if
> I'm wrong here.
>
> typedef boost::ratios::ratio<1, 2> R1;
> typedef boost::ratios::ratio<1, 3> R2;
> typedef boost::ratios::add<R1, R2> R;
>
> If we put all of them in boost::ratios maybe the class names contains redundant information
>
> typedef boost::ratios::ratio<1, 2> R1;
> typedef boost::ratios::ratio<1, 3> R2;
> typedef boost::ratios::ratio_add<R1, R2> R;
>
>
> Do the Boost community agree with these names or is this one of the
> special cases that needs consideration?

+1 on eliminating redundant information. Names can be adjusted for
standardization, and even aliased, if you want, at that time.

+1 also on considering whether the singular namespace name causes
problems that you actually feel obliged to avoid. Not sure the
"using" argument is a strong one.

-- 
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