templates?
To: Boost <boost@[...].com> 
Message-ID: <B87D92BC.12A94%darin@[...]..> 
In-Reply-To: <sc584bba.023@[...].. _THREE.BENF1.COM> 
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
From: Darin Adler <darin@[...]..> 
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=26867450
X-Yahoo-Profile: darinadler

On 1/30/02 11:38 AM, Alisdair Meredith
<alisdair.meredith@[...]..>  wrote:

>  Is the intent for users to continue accessing the smart pointers through the
>  single header, or to migrate to using the individual headers for the pointers
>  used?
> 
>  If it intended to support the latter, then the top level naming makes sense.
>  Otherwise, I'd go with the detail-folder.

The intent is the latter. I suggest migrating to use of the individual
headers.

>  I had taken the top-level name as an indication we were intended to use the
>  headers directly.

That's an argument for the top-level names. I also think it's nice to have
the names match the namespace nesting, which is another argument for
top-level names.

-- Darin