Gennaro Prota wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:42:05 -0300, Fernando Cacciola <fernando_cacciola@hotmail.com> wrote:
I take you disagree. Can you explain why?
Even if it happens to be shared between three or four libraries it still doesn't belong to the root dir just for that. You could probably agree to have it in detail/, but that's going to give problems in the long run in my opinion, probably mitigated if you insert a big comment along the lines of "Caution: this component is shared between x, y and z and shall keep the following behavior and interface. Only apply workarounds if they are needed for all of x, y and z, etc.". I'd suggest discussing that with the authors of the libraries you want to share it with. If you all agree that the benefits outweigh the cost I don't have strong objections (not that I don't have ;-))
FWIW, it can't go under the detail folder and/or namespace. That's how I initially did it but someone noticed that "none" and "none_t" are part of the public interface for optional<>, so these must be at some "user level" space. IOW, the implementation of "none_t" and "none" are a detail, but _they_ are not. They can be considered general or specific, which is different, so if they don't go into the root folder they must go into /optional (if they are considered specific), or /utility if not. But then I don't see much of a difference between the root folder and /utility for this. Best Fernando Cacciola