On Feb 13, 2008 7:12 PM, Stjepan Rajko <stipe@asu.edu> wrote:
On Feb 13, 2008 8:47 AM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the help. I think the best suggestions were control/control_flow although I'm still not entirely happy with them.
"control" does sound nice... also "flow_control"? "switches" sounds a bit odd at first but it kinda grew on me. I'm not sure whether there is a precedent for this in boost, but maybe "switchlib"? (that has a pretty fierce sound to it, like "switchblade" ;-).. although it certainly departs from the suggested naming convention). Or an acronym? "fcl" (flow control library?)... but that departs from the suggested convention too.
But there are precedents though, think mpl... sl (switch library) wouldn't be bad, but maybe too short an collision prone.
Another alternative altogether might be to find a good home in existing libraries/namespaces (utility? something else?) That of course depends on what the final switch library looks like, and the say of any library authors that would be involved.
+1 for utility, depending on how many names the switch library puts in a namespace. -- gpd