Subject: Re: [boost] namespace boost?
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-18 13:15:14
AMDG
On 1/18/2011 9:50 AM, Stewart, Robert wrote:
> Dave Abrahams wrote:
>> This is true, but I don't want to encourage a proliferation of
>> files with the same name (in different directories). That
>> will just make development harder. I can't help but think
>> that those against boost/library_name.hpp are focusing so hard
>> on purity that they're ignoring convenience. It should be
>> _trivial_ for people to get started with a boost library, and
>> #include<boost/library_name/library_name.hpp> makes a bad
>> first impression, IMO.
>
> For the person just starting with a Boost library, boost/library_name.hpp is the way to go (I wasn't suggesting not having that file). If that includes boost/library_name/all.hpp, then once boost/library_name.hpp exists, it will never change so library_name's developer need never worry about it again.
>
> I wasn't commenting on the wisdom of boost/configurator/configurator.hpp, though I agree that the redundancy is unfortunate. However, if there's no other include file in boost/configurator, what name should it have?
>
How about we just say that a library should reserve
a single name under boost and how it uses it is up
to the library author (i.e. a single header, a directory,
or a directory + header are all fine.). If we're
just trying to keep the top-level boost from getting
cluttered, there's no reason to overspecify the
solution.
In Christ,
Steven Watanabe