Beman Dawes wrote:
Here is a strawman proposal for how we organize C++0x standard library components we choose to add to Boost:
* Such libraries go through the regular formal review process, although it will need to be adjusted a bit since the interface is already known and frozen.
* C++0x standard library header naming convention is followed. Thus these will be named <chrono> and <ratio> rather than <chrono.hpp> and <ratio.hpp>.
* C++0x standard library namespaces are used. Thus namespace std and std::chrono rather than boost and boost::chrono.
Why do something similar to what we did with the TR1 interfaces and have: <boost/chrono.hpp> (rather like boost/stdint.hpp actually) or <boost/c++0x/chrono.hpp> with code in namepsace boost, and then add a thin wrapper <chono> that imports code into namespace std::chrono.
* Directory structure:
boost-root boost c++0x // <ratio>, <chrono>, and other c++0x std lib headers go here ... libs c++0x chrono build doc src // if needed test ratio build doc src // if needed test ...
Nod. John.
This allows a user to refer to say the ratio header as <boost/c++/ratio>, <c++/ratio>, or just plain <ratio>. The user would have to provide an additional include path of boost-root/boost or boost-root/boost/c++0x for the second and third usages to work.
Comments?
--Beman _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.6/1769 - Release Date: 05/11/2008 07:17