From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-23 14:03:06
----- Original Message -----
From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
> At 04:16 AM 6/23/2001, Jens Maurer wrote:
>
> >The special functions, octonions, and quaternions by Hubert Holin
> >are now added to the CVS.
> >
> >They're in a new sub-directory libs/math (and boost/math), expected
> >to contain other libraries in the future. However, I just noticed
> >that the namespace is still boost::octonion (and not
> >boost::math::octonion). Is this something to worry about regarding
> >consistency?
>
> It seems to me namespaces should follow an "optimal branching" strategy
> similar to the one John Maddock has described for libraries. The
hierarchy
> should neither be so flat that there are large numbers of entries at each
> level, nor so tall and deep that there are only one entry at many levels.
>
> So boost::math seems right to me for the 1st and 2nd levels. If
octonion's
> introduce many names then there should be a third level -
> boost::math::octonion, but if they only introduce one or two names, there
> shouldn't be a third level. (Sorry, I don't remember if that is the case
> or not for that library.)
I agree. My informal guideline is that domains should get namespaces, but
classes should not have their own namespace. Octonions are not a domain (in
my uneducated opinon), so they should live in the namespace of the nearest
enclosing domain (boost::math).
-Dave