Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] expected/result/etc
From: Sam Kellett (samkellett_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-02-05 03:36:26

On 4 February 2016 at 23:00, Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]>

> On 5 Feb 2016 at 11:34, Gavin Lambert wrote:
> > I think what Sam was trying to get at is that instead of declaring
> > things in the boost namespace, your abstraction layer should declare
> > things in some unique namespace (mostly as typedefs and usings from
> > either std:: or boost:: as appropriate), and then your code that depends
> > on this should exclusively use your abstraction layer namespace, not the
> > boost namespace.
> >
> > This will avoid generating any conflicts or warnings even if Boost and
> > your emulation are included at the same time. Though the potential
> > downside is that in cases where you want it to use the Boost version, it
> > might not due to the include order, and you could end up with some
> > components using Boost and others not (although that should generate
> > link errors).
> Regarding the macro namespace collision, it's a fair point, but as I
> have said more than once now the semantic meaning of the macros is
> the same. So BOOST_RV_REF or whatever means and does the exact same
> thing, and the warnings are only occurring because the library is
> being configured incorrectly anyway. If you configured it right, no
> warnings

what's the disadvantage of using your own namespace? afaics it is exactly
the same only without the possibility of a namespace collision.

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