Joel de Guzman wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
My concern is that this policy does not seem to be scalable. What's to prevent someone from adding hundreds of small things (typedefs, enums, small classes, etc.) in boost detail? The policy does. It says you only do that when they are in fact needed by multiple libraries. And anyway, what's wrong with having hundreds of small things in boost detail?
--The same reasons why we use sub-namespaces and sub-directories. Multiply that with the number of Boost developers past and present. The single boost::detail namespace can become utterly crowded.
OK, you have good points. I won't argue this any more. My only concern is a crowded boost::detail namespace in the future. Perhaps what we can do is subdivide boost::detail in the future when the need arises.
Hmmm.. which might not be a bad idea. We can name the sub-namespaces based on generic categories like that in http://boost.org/libs/libraries.htm categories. Cheers, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net