Re: [boost] [type_traits][general] Best practice for inline namespaces?

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 (
> http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.html) is against
> inline namespace usage, but I see that in case of multiple versioning this
> might me interesting to use.
>
> Roger
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>

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.