Re: [boost] Review Request: impl_ptr (pimpl)

On 21.08.2017 13:48, Vladimir Batov via Boost wrote:

On 2017-08-21 16:29, Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost wrote:

...

2017-08-20 0:46 GMT+02:00 Vladimir Batov via Boost :

...

2) As I think I mentioned before impl_ptr is not part of any namespace by design... because the way proxy and implementation are connected, the specialization of impl_ptr<>::implementation. As I also mentioned it is IMO only a "problem" for "purists" but not for "practitioners" as from outside it is all kosher and accessed via boost::impl_ptr.

Could you summarize why using the global namespace is necessary?

template<> struct impl_ptr<Foo>::implementation is a template specialization. So, it has to be defined in the original namespace. So, if it is

namespace boost {     template<typename> struct impl_ptr; }

then the developer will have to declare his specialization of "implementation" inside boost:

namespace boost {     template<> struct impl_ptr<Foo>::implementation { ... }; }

That's ugly and wrong. <snip>

FWIW, as a Boost user I don't find that ugly and wrong. Plus we already do things like namespace boost { void assertion_failed(char const * expr, char const * function, char const * file, long line) {     // ... } } so for a long time now, we have a precedent too. Regards, Gevorg