Tobias Schwinger wrote:
1. How to set up the client namespaces most conveniently?
Too many qualified names clutter my code.
I actually like the scheme the library uses but I encountered following portability problems on the client side:
namespace a_scope { using namespace boost::fusion; namespace result_of { using namespace boost::fusion::result_of; }
namespace mpl = boost::mpl;
struct a_copy_function; // omitted for transparency
namespace result_of { template<typename Seq> struct noop_transform : transform<typename boost::add_const<Seq>::type, a_copy_function> // ^^^^^^^^^ vc 7.1 and gcc 3.4 choke here { }; }
template<typename Seq> inline typename result_of::noop_transform<Seq>::type // ^^^^^^^^^ found ambiguous by some compilers // (IIRC it was gcc, couldn't reproduce the case, though) noop_transform(Seq const & seq) { return transform(seq, an_identity_function()); // ^^^^^^^^^ found ambiguous by vc 8 (visible + ADL) } }
Again, I'm not sure about the best use practice. On the client side, I would think that you will want to use Fusion, MPL, interspersed with STL. Those libraries (esecially MPL and Fusion) have lots of names in common. I am not sure if using directives/declarations will be practical at all. The least I can suggest is: namespace mpl = boost::mpl; namespace fusion = boost::fusion; Those are short prefixes already. Or maybe even: namespace fpl = boost::fusion; // fusion programming library. hah! :) namespace bfl = boost::fusion; // boost fusion library. hahah! :) Choose your pick. I kinda like the "fpl" synonym. It jives well with mpl and stl. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net