Jean-Louis Leroy wrote:
I use detail name myself. Any better names for bucket with implementation details?
What about `namespace private_` ? Even if access won't be controlled by the compiler.
That's my favourite replacement. The underscore suffix in name could be easily linked with quite popular use of it in naming private class members: struct T { private: int value_; int foo_() { ... } }
And also a `namespace protected_` if there are useful things to put there ?
Doesn't really work for me. If something is useful (assuming for a library client), put it to public namespace. Second would be too much, convention became too complex, so vague. I think. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org