Re: [multi] Formal Review Begins

niedz., 8 mar 2026 o 09:30 Amlal El Mahrouss via Boost <
[email protected]> napisał(a):

> Hi Andrzej,
>
> Firstly,
> Yes indeed I agree to both parts, I should mention that I am not an
> English native speaker as well.
>
> And secondly, regarding the PR, I agree that dropping extensions_t to
> extents and thus dropping the suffix _t. I have nothing to add here.
>
> However,
> I am curious about your "private detail" part of your message, I think we
> should still keep the name short in most cases, unless it's a container
> (like basic_extents as you mentioned).
>
> Can you elaborate about that last part?
>

Sure. I made an assumption that because header multi/detail/extents.hpp
has"detail" in its path, it follows the Boost practice and represents an
implementation detail (as opposed to a component exposed to the customers).
This was reinforced by my seeing "namespace detail" in the header contents.
But now, upon closer inspection, I can see that class extents are not in
that namespace. And now I am confused. Usually, it is the Reference section
that determines what is officialand what is the implementation detail. But
this library doesn't have an adequate Reference section.

Regards,
&rzej;


> Best,
> Amlal
> _______________________________________________
> Boost mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
> https://lists.boost.org/mailman3/lists/boost.lists.boost.org/
> Archived at:
> https://lists.boost.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/GAEGFG6OZVI2G2V2BXFN5IMCMEVHHIXW/
>
_______________________________________________
Boost mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman3/lists/boost.lists.boost.org/
Archived at: https://lists.boost.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/Z4GVWN2A2ZYHF5ZTPMGKJEUTVPXNVZFZ/