From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-30 14:45:52
From: "Alisdair Meredith" <alisdair.meredith_at_[hidden]>
> Is the intent for users to continue accessing the smart pointers through
the single header, or to migrate to using the individual headers for the
pointers used?
>
> If it intended to support the latter, then the top level naming makes
sense. Otherwise, I'd go with the detail-folder.
>
> I had taken the top-level name as an indication we were intended to use
the headers directly.
Yes, this has been my intent. In my experience a translation unit rarely
needs all four (now five) smart pointer classes.