Re: [boost] Namespace policy: putting names in boost::detail

Subject: Re: [boost] Namespace policy: putting names in boost::detail
From: Vicente Botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-05 01:40:32

Mathias Gaunard-2 wrote:
> 
> On 04/07/2011 18:53, Vicente Botet wrote:
>>
>> Mathias Gaunard-2 wrote:
>>>
>>> A GSoC student and I are currently converting a library to use the
>>> namespace boost::simd.
>>>
>>> Some of the implementation details of the library are not simd-specific,
>>> and we would like to use them in some other libraries that extend
>>> boost::simd.
>>>
>>> Would it be ok to put them in the boost::detail namespace, or is that
>>> considered as bad as putting stuff in the boost namespace?
>>>
>>> We need to inject overloads and specializations into a unique namespace
>>> for boost.simd and NT2, so we could need two names, like
>>> boost::detail::dispatch and boost::detail::specialize.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What kind of dispatch and specializations do you need to share that they
>> can
>> not be on simd? Maybe some more context will help.
> 
> NT2 and Boost.SIMD use a fully externalizable function dispatching and 
> specialization mechanism.
> 
> In NT2, we have some functions, like plus, multiplies, etc. that work on 
> a variety of types: scalars, simd packs, expression trees, tables, 
> matrices, polynoms, etc.
> Each function can thus be specialized many times, some times just for 
> particular scalars or simd pack types for example.
> All specializations of all functions are provided as specializations of 
> the same class.
> 
> The dispatching uses overloading to select the best specialization 
> available using partial ordering.
> It already relies on ADL tricks so I don't think we can be very flexible 
> with regards to namespaces.
> 
> Boost.SIMD will only contain the scalar and simd packs specializations, 
> and we would need to add the other versions of NT2.
> 
> Actually, I think it might be better to put all that in the namespace 
> boost::detail::dispatch (or even boost::dispatch), as some kind of 
> "pending" library
> 
> 

I don't know if this can be used by the user as an extension mechanism in
your case, but if it is the case, the namespace should be public.

Best,
Vicente

--
View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Namespace-policy-putting-names-in-boost-detail-tp3644016p3645163.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.