On Mon, 3 Sep 2018 at 16:21, Peter Dimov via Boost
Edward Diener wrote:
Although it is discouraged I think allowing function, template, and class names directly in the boost namespace should be allowed when those names mimic std:: names, but with Boost functionality. I think Boost should avoid as much as possible using namespace names which are the same as std:: functions, templates, and classes.
This is impractical. New names appear in std:: every three years, it's not possible to predict in advance whether a library name will match a standard identifier. It worked in the past when C++98 was all we had, it doesn't work now.
I think that as hardly any Boost library that was adopted in the standard actually complies (sometimes more, sometimes less and sometimes just different) with the standard, the boost namespace should be enough warning that we are talking about something else than whatever is in the standard. So boost should simply do what it thinks is best from its perspective, namespace-wise. degski -- *“If something cannot go on forever, it will stop" - Herbert Stein* *“No, it isn’t truth. Truth isn’t truth" - Rudolph W. L. Giuliani*