At Sun, 16 Jan 2011 12:15:43 +0100, vicente.botet wrote:
Hi,
Before moving all the classes on Boost.Ratio from boost:: to boost::ratios:: I wanted to signal that Boost.Ratio follows the names on the C++0x standard and that these names where choosen to be used in the std context and that any class is prefixed by ratio_. If a specific ratios namespace were in their minds, I'm sure that they will not use the ratio_add<> but just add<>. Please let me know if I'm wrong here.
typedef boost::ratios::ratio<1, 2> R1; typedef boost::ratios::ratio<1, 3> R2; typedef boost::ratios::add<R1, R2> R;
If we put all of them in boost::ratios maybe the class names contains redundant information
typedef boost::ratios::ratio<1, 2> R1; typedef boost::ratios::ratio<1, 3> R2; typedef boost::ratios::ratio_add<R1, R2> R;
Do the Boost community agree with these names or is this one of the special cases that needs consideration?
+1 on eliminating redundant information. Names can be adjusted for standardization, and even aliased, if you want, at that time. +1 also on considering whether the singular namespace name causes problems that you actually feel obliged to avoid. Not sure the "using" argument is a strong one. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com