Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] using name boost::in_place -- need your opinion/advice
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-30 07:16:32
On Monday, 30 May 2016 14:14:02 MSK Andrzej Krzemienski wrote:
> 2016-05-30 12:57 GMT+02:00 Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]>:
> > No, I wasn't suggesting importing boost::optionals::in_place into boost.
> > Only import what
> > is currently considered API (i.e. the optional template; I don't think
> > anything else qualifies
> > as such). Also document the change and deprecate the imports so that
> > people start
> > porting to the nested namespace. You can remove the imports when you feel
> > it's safe.
> > This could also be done for boost::none as well for good measure.
> But wouldn't that be a bit of an inconvenience that a "vocabulary type" as
> common as Optional should be used with additional long namespace prefix (or
> users required to type a using declaration themselves everywhere)?
I don't find that inconvenient. I would rather have every Boost library in its own
namespace. Name clashes pose much much more inconvenience IMO.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk