Pete Bartlett wrote:
From Robert Ramey
to move those 3 libraries to the 'detail' namespace of Boost.Task and have review as it is, as opposed to waiting. What do you think?
I think I caught hell for doing something similar in the serialization library. I had to make a number of components such as BOOST_STRONGTYPEDEF, state_saver, smart_cast, etc. which I put into boost - (not detail) and year afterwards this was raised as a huge problem. And this was even though the components had been their through two reviews. So I would be careful about doing this.
This seems a little more negative than I remember. If we are thinking of the same thread (see e.g. http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2007/11/130567.php ) then a lot of the discussion was about headers directly in the boost root directory rather than a subdirectory, rather the issue at hand.
Hmmm - I thought ..Fiber and Atomic were intended to be put into boost/.. rather than boost/detail/... In any case there is lots of stuff in boost/ and no clear policy about it. Note that I'm not advocating one thing or another. Rather I'm relating that the lack of definition on this created a lot of problem for me in the past, in spite of the best of intentions. Robert Ramey