On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 11:33 AM, John Maddock <john@johnmaddock.co.uk> wrote:
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.
OK, let me take a look at that approach. Thanks for the comments, --Beman