-----Original Message----- From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Nat Goodspeed Sent: 23 April 2014 16:16 To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [typeindex v3.0] Peer review begins Mon 21st ends Wed 30th
[Not a review, but a response to one of Paul's comments]
On 23 Apr 2014 at 14:33, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
Though I'm not enthusiastic about the name of namespace boost::typeind:: but I don't have any much better ideas. Perhaps someone else has?
To clarify the issue to everyone else, TypeIndex is in a rather unusual bind with regard to what namespace to use. Ideally I think we'd all agree that boost::type_index would be best, but then one of the issues raised last peer review was that there shouldn't be a boost::type_index type as could conflict with std::type_index, and if we hold that to be wise, then surely the same rationale applies for a boost::type_index namespace as well.
So we end up with boost::typeind, which I don't think makes anyone happy, but it is safe.
I don't suppose boost::typeindex would be an improvement? That name at least immediately suggests to the reader which library to look up.
I like this better too.
Whichever name is selected, both the documentation and code comments at the namespace definition should explain, as above, why the author intentionally avoided type_index.
Agreed. Yours BikeSheddingly ;-) Paul --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 01539 561830