Re: [boost] Monotone phasing out use of bits of boost due to having to build external libraries

From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-07-14 16:27:50

Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> John,
> if you are going to refactor, probably you can follow the proposals
> that circulated on the list, of supporting both approaches.
> Basically, you can give an header that has only declarations, one with
> (inline) definitions (inline can be controlled with preprocessor
> macro), and a source file that will include the definitions with
> disabled inlines.
> 
> In this way, everyone can choose whether to include the inline
> definitions, or compile in its project the source file with
> out-of-line versions of the functions.
> 
> I think that when one has the option of compiling the library using
> his preferred build system, this need for header only library will
> just disappear, and other considerations as compile times will weight
> more.

I'm un-dropping off the grid to mention that the Boost mandatory source
files should be able to be directly incorporated into a user's build
system.  It's been possible in the past.  Maybe we should suggest to
Monotone to try that first.

> I like very much the boost build system, but I have to admit that to
> understand how it worked and to appreciate its power took a lot of
> time. Maybe relieving just this entry barrier (easing the porting to
> the user-chosen build system) will be enough for improve boost
> acceptance.

I've mentioned thoughts like this before, but since our primary purpose
is creating C++ libraries, I don't want our secondary projects (like
Boost.Build) to create a NIH barrier for our users.  I've finally posted
an official bug about this (#1093) at
<http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/1093>.

> On 7/14/07, John Maddock <john_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Anthony Williams wrote:
>>> There has recently been some discussion on the monotone development
>>> list about phasing out their use of boost libraries that require
>>> building external lib files (filesystem and regex). I thought people
>>> might find it interesting, so I'm posting some of the comments here:
>> Anthony: can you pass on to these folks that I'm willing to work with them
>> to refactor regex as a header only library if that's the only showstopper?
>>
>> I have some reservations about such a refactoring (mostly compile times get
>> a lot longer, I suspect), but I guess it's ultimately a "suck it and see"
>> issue.

-- 
Daryle Walker
Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie
darylew AT hotmail DOT com