Le 14/09/12 22:22, Beman Dawes a écrit :
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Eric Niebler <eric@boostpro.com> wrote:
On 9/14/2012 10:42 AM, Greg Rubino wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Dave Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
ctx seems like a needlessly short abbreviation. Wouldn't it be better and more consistent with the rest of Boost to ask users to write
using namespace ctx = boost::context;
if they want something short?
I was thinking the same thing actually. +1
AFAICT, it seems like the general convention is that if the name of the library is Boost.Beetlejuice, then the namespace will be boost::beetlejuice. The word 'context' isn't really long enough to justify breaking that tradition IMO. Amazingly, we actually have a published convention for these things. :-)
http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html
'The library is given a name that describes the contents of the library. Cryptic abbreviations are strongly discouraged. Following the practice of the C++ Standard Library, names are usually singular rather than plural. For example, a library dealing with file systems might chose the name "filesystem", but not "filesystems", "fs" or "nicecode".'
It goes on to say that if there is a class or function of the same name as the library (boost::tuple), the name should be pluralized (e.g. boost::tuples::tuple, but tuple isn't in it's own namespace so it's moot in this case).
So, if there already is a component boost::ctx::context, or if you would like to leave that door open, the namespace should be "boost::contexts". Otherwise, the namespace should be "boost::context", IMO. +1
If the namespace is changed, I will prefer that the name convey the functionality behind the context class. We can have a lot of context. The functionality is close to a continuation context, but I don't know if it implements it completely, so maybe continuation could be considered. Best, Vicente