Subject: Re: [boost] [random] geometric_distribution backwards compatibility
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-24 16:27:08
On 1/23/2011 4:52 PM, Jeremiah Willcock wrote:
> I noticed that discrepancy between Boost.Random and usual definitions of
> geometric_distribution as well, but forgot to report it; I would prefer
> to have the standard definition rather than the current one. I support
> your second option, as long as people don't have both "using namespace
> boost;" and "using namespace boost::random;" in the same code.
This is unlikely with the current library, since everything
useful to users is in namespace boost. Even if it does
happen it will produce a compilation error, so it isn't
as bad as it could be.
> Since you
> state that you will be moving things around, you are likely to be
> deprecating the versions in boost::, and so the change in
> geometric_distribution would fit into the same category.
Okay. Everyone who's spoken up seems to favor this,
so I've gone with it. I had to do the same for
lognormal_distribution as well.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk