Hi Vicente,
Before moving all the classes on Boost.Ratio from boost:: to boost::ratios:: I wanted to signal that Boost.Ratio follows the names on the C++0x standard and that these names where choosen to be used in the std context and that any class is prefixed by ratio_. If a specific ratios namespace were in their minds, I'm sure that they will not use the ratio_add<> but just add<>. Please let me know if I'm wrong here.
typedef boost::ratios::ratio<1, 2> R1; typedef boost::ratios::ratio<1, 3> R2; typedef boost::ratios::add<R1, R2> R;
If we put all of them in boost::ratios maybe the class names contains redundant information
typedef boost::ratios::ratio<1, 2> R1; typedef boost::ratios::ratio<1, 3> R2; typedef boost::ratios::ratio_add<R1, R2> R;
Do the Boost community agree with these names or is this one of the special cases that needs consideration?
There are 1) libraries using a singular namespace: boost::archive:: boost::date_time:: boost::filesystem:: boost::fusion:: boost::geometry:: boost::multi_index:: boost::polygon:: boost::property_tree:: boost::serialization:: 2) libraries using a plural namespace name: boost::accumulators:: boost::bimaps:: boost::flyweights:: boost::program_options:: boost::ratios:: (your proposal) boost::signals:: (named by a renameble macro BOOST_SIGNALS_NAMESPACE) boost::tuples:: boost::units:: 3) libraries using the library suffix: boost::gil:: boost::icl:: boost::mpl:: 4) libraries using a name or abbreviation: boost::asio:: boost::lambda:: boost::math:: boost::msm:: boost::proto:: boost::spirit:: 5) libraries using a verb: boost::assign:: 6) libraries defining functionality within the boost:: namespace: algorithm any bind graph iterator range smart_prt thread variant (all not exhaustive) --- So everything seems possible. Personally, I find boost::ratio more intuitive then boost::ratios, and indeed the ratio_add might then be changed into add. But I understand that it might lead to ambiguity because you also have the class name ratio. Regards, Barend