I'd just like to point out a few things on this: - Firstly, I think it's a really good idea, and I think I suggested it a while ago :) - Some older or less conforming compilers might not know about or like namespaces - You also might like to consider creating sub-namespaces, for instance anything that is a utility, and is useful, but has no specific relation to Bible software, could go in a namespace util, or utility. (say for instance, string manipulation functions) - Anything that is an implementation detail could go in a namespace clearly marking it as such. For instance, I believe that Boost puts such things in a namespace 'detail' - Any symbols that are to be local to a translation unit should be placed in an anonymous namespace - It is recommended that library users only place "using" statements in source files, not header files, and only after all #include statements.
I also recommend the following article for people interested in namespace migration issues: http://www.gotw.ca/gotw/053.htm Blessings, -David. On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 20:25, Daniel Glassey wrote: > On 30 Sep 2002 at 11:38, Daniel Glassey sent forth the message: > > > Hi, > > Does anyone strongly object to me putting the sword stuff into a 'sword' > > namespace? > > ok, > the stuff is ready to go in and consensus afaict is that it is a good idea so I'll >put it in this evening. I > just thought I'd give you advance warning because it will break current application >code and old > compilers unless you use the backward compatibility define. > > so you if you want sword to not be in it's own namespace you have to define >NO_SWORD_NAMESPACE > when you compile or use CVS sword. > > At the start of each header or source file after the #includes there is a macro > SWORD_NAMESPACE_START. > And at the very end there is SWORD_NAMESPACE_END > > Any new files must have these macros. > > oh, and I may have missed some though I made sure it compiles with and without > NO_SWORD_NAMESPACE so gimme a shout if you find anything. > > Regards, > Daniel
