on Sun Nov 18 2007, "Robert Ramey" <ramey-AT-rrsd.com> wrote:
In my particular case, I had a need for some things like static_warning and strong_typedef which didn't exist. I didn't put them where they are currently found by accident. I knew they didn't fit in the serialization library and it seemed they were very similar to other files in the above list. I made
So, if I decide that some parts of spirit (a lot! e.g. multi_pass iterator) is useful outside spirit and does not really belong in spirit, I'm free to put that outside the spirit sphere and into boost?
Up until now that's been the case.
In general, no, it has not been the case. This may not be a perfect arrangement, but with very few exceptions: * Core libraries whose documented public interface fits in just a few headers and a few pages of documentation have been able to put all their public headers in boost/ and their components in boost::. * Larger libraries have sometimes placed a single consolidated convenience header in boost/, forwarding to files of the form boost/<libraryname>/<header>.hpp. Regardless, their documented public components are not in boost/ or namespace boost:: * Un-reviewed implementation details of libraries have been placed in boost/detail if they need to be used by other libraries and a subdirectory of boost/<libraryname>/ otherwise I explained most of this in http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2006/05/105195.php
So rather than saying that authors have refused to follow "standard practice", it would be more accurate to say that...
Nobody said that. What I said was that some people have ignored direct (public and private) appeals from moderators to bring their headers into conformance with the standard practice, and that is exactly correct. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com