Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] string convert
From: Vicente BOTET (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-05-05 19:47:10

> Message du 06/05/11 01:31
> De : "Vladimir Batov"
> A : boost_at_[hidden]
> Copie à :
> Objet : Re: [boost] [review] string convert
> > Vicente BOTET> writes:
> >
> >> Additional note. While you are on the interface, it probably needs to be kept
> >> in mind that the current (as I understand it anyway) Boost policy is to avoid
> >> introducing content directly in the boost namespace.
> >
> > Would you apply this to your Boost libraries?
> You are probably referring to my old 'convert' proposal. Yes, all was wrapped
> inside 'convert' which among other things worked as a namespace. Indeed it was
> not a namespace. However, it was implemented *as* a namespace. Exactly how
> namespaces were implemented via struct long time ago when compilers did not
> support namespaces. Namely,
> namespace convert
> {
> void from();
> }
> can be achieved with 'struct':
> struct convert
> {
> static void from();
> };
> In fact, for various reasons I still often prefer the latter. Your taste might
> differ.
> V.

Well I can see that you use boost::conversion namespace and boost::convert class. So you are using two 'namaspaces'. I don't know if this follows the Boost.rule. In any case it is not quite orthodox.

I see that your PImpl proposal defines a class piml which is not even in the boost namespace.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at