From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-06-14 09:06:02
--- In boost_at_y..., Douglas Gregor <gregod_at_c...> wrote:
> On Thursday 14 June 2001 07:13, you wrote:
> > I wonder whether the "detail" namespace should be replaced with
> > "function_detail" or "function::detail" whichever you prefer - I
worry
> > about namespace clashes if everyone uses "detail". Having said
that if you
> > don't think that it's a problem then leave it for now.
>
> Function has a lot of helper classes, so it probably should have
its own
> detail namespace.
This has been brought up before, and I thought the suggested
alternative was boost::detail::library (in this case
boost::detail::function)?
> > Like almost everyone else I'm not keen on boost::nil, personally
I would
> > just leave it out, but if you really want it, then renaming to
something
> > else seems to be in order (to avoid the mac problem).
>
> I really like 'nil' (because I dislike OO-style interfaces for
simple
> components), but I'll go with the general consensus.
Just a personal comment here. I like the idea of "nil", but I'm
afraid that there are some hidden dangers that have not been
discovered yet. I'd prefer to leave "nil" out in a first release,
insuring a safe interface for now, then after existing practice with
the concept has been obtained consider introducing "nil" back into
Boost.Function.
Bill Kempf