-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 03 March 2008 09:09 am, Doug Gregor wrote:
We didn't think as carefully about header (or namespace) placement when the Signals library went into Boost, so there are some inconsistencies. visit_each and last_value were reviewed with Signals, but went into boost/ (and namespace boost) because they were considered to be general mechanisms that could be reused. visit_each, for example, needs to be supported by a few other libraries (like Bind) to be useful, so it didn't belong in Signals.
As for boost/signal.hpp: it's in boost/ because boost::signal is in namespace boost. In retrospect, I should have put everything in namespace boost::signals (and headers in boost/signals), but back in 2002 we didn't have quite as much clutter in the top-level boost namespace/directory.
thread_safe_signals has a similar header/namespace layout to boost.signals, since I figured staying as close to the original as possible would ease acceptance. But perhaps I should rearrange things to be more in line with current boost policies? And by the way, who do I need to send a campaign donation to in order to get a review manager? :) - -- Frank -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHzCtI5vihyNWuA4URAmvxAJsEUHlMkXAPqrq7WDBjhW5xly+JDACgrI1Y n3JObH1PkXwlr+tHwSQfh/Y= =w9+O -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----