Joel de Guzman wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
That goes the same for the boost namespace. IMO, we need a clear policy on what goes there. Lest, we'll have it filled up and polluted with lotsa stuff before we know it. Yes, well, now we have a precedent that violates what is, IMO, the only reasonable policy. That makes it a little harder to make the policy official. But anyway, I have a strong suspicion that you and I substantially agree on that policy, so I would be very happy if you'd write something up. Then we have something concrete to argue about ;-)
Ok, I'll take this one. I see you've got the "standard practice" defined in another post. I'll try to collect all the relevant information from the current discussions and collect them into a document.
I've collected all the relevant information from the discussions so far. If there are more counter-arguments (Robert?) please post them now. I'll post my recommendation (subject to discussion) in the coming days. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net