Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [type_traits][general] Best practice for inline namespaces?
From: Oleg Grunin (ogrunin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-01-20 21:43:09

On 1/18/15 8:45 AM, Rogerio dos Santos wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 6:16 AM, John Maddock <jz.maddock_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>> I was thinking of adding inline namespace support (ie lib versioning) to
>> type_traits, but what's the best practice for naming the inline namespace?
>> I was thinking of going with some mangled version of BOOST_VERSION which
>> would effectively change the namespace with each release. That feels like
>> it's probably right to me: old versions of any traits would then be
>> archived in boost::tt105600:: or whatever version the change happened.
>> Comments?
> The Google style (
> is against
> inline namespace usage, but I see that in case of multiple versioning this
> might me interesting to use.
> Roger
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:

The google style guide forbids the use of Boost in general with a very
few exceptions. Among those is:

"The part of Polygon that deals with Voronoi diagram construction and
doesn't depend on the rest of Polygon"

In view of that, I think it makes little sense for the Boost developers
to adhere to the google guidelines, at least until they condescend to
admit the Pentagon as well.

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