Paul A. Bristow wrote:
Mathias Gaunard wrote:
Anyway, it's probably not a good idea to do "using namespace boost", just like you shouldn't do "using namespace std"...
+1 - it will come round and bite you eventually (or some poor unsuspecting maintainer).
I agree WRT to boost, but not std. It doesn't have to apply to boost either, but that is the current reality.
And Boost's many examples should NOT set a bad example by doing "using namespace boost".
IMO "using boost::a_library::a_function;" is actually much better, despite being longer, because it makes clear where the function comes from.
+1 (Not because of the ambiguities such a using directive might cause but because examples shouldn't leave room for guessing.) _____ Rob Stewart robert.stewart@sig.com Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer; Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.