Re: Registries [2]
David Abrahams <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.boost.langbinding |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Daniel Wallin <[email protected]> writes: > At 21:45 2003-07-29, David Abrahams wrote: >>Daniel Wallin <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > At 18:42 2003-07-29, David Abrahams wrote: >> >>Daniel Wallin <[email protected]> writes: >> >> >> >> > I'm starting to doubt our motives for local registries altogether, I >> >> > might be forgetting something or I might be drunk, but right now it >> >> > seems to me that we'd be better off with only a global registry. I >> >> > just can't think of any cases where there would be interest in hiding >> >> > converters. >> >> > This is quite a turnover for me, so if someone could convince me >> >> > that there are benefits with local registries I'd be glad. ;) >> >> >> >>Consider: one extension is converting std::vector<int> into native >> >>tuples, and another has exposed a class_ wrapper. >> > >> > Right, but that only justifies local registries of to_xxx converters. >> > Any reason to have the from_xxx converters local as well? >> >>People like to put C++ code in the global namespace and might have >>name collisions (?) > > Right, but with automatic importing they would be screwed anyway. Not if the automatic imports had a lower priority than the others, right? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01