Jean-Louis Leroy wrote:
Speaking of Boost, the "detail" namespace is commonly used for implementation details, same as "aux" (or variations thereof), so this is a good choice if you're writing a new library for Boost.
I may stick to the tradition (actually I'm doing that for now) but if we always limited ourselves to common usage, Boost would not exist to start with would it ? ;-)
J-L
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
I would suggest that consistency is more important in coding style issues than the actual constraint. Within Boost, detail has a well known meaning. I think it would be unwise to deviate from such style precedence unless there was a very compelling reason. michael -- ---------------------------------- Michael Caisse Object Modeling Designs www.objectmodelingdesigns.com