Re: [boost] [optional] using name boost::in_place -- need your opinion/advice

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.