Re: [boost] But it would Re: [gil] [announcement] New IO lib

From: John Femiani (JOHN.FEMIANI_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-26 19:22:36

> > Please scroll through this list and check out how many people are
> > talking about things like 'problems linking boost on XXXXX'.
> > -- wait, you wont have to scroll far will you :) Somebody 
> > just posted a new one!
> 
> 
> Yeah, shocking how many people don't know how to use their 
> compiler+linker.
> ;-)

Yeah, maybe, but boost should at least _try_ to be easy to for newbies
as well as experts right?  That would also help you by reducing the
number of times you have to say RTFM ;-)

I think that Tom's point was that gil is a 'generic' library and is
all-headers (it must be, it is generic), so adding a feature that would
require a _new_ depency on _another_ library, particularly one that has
to be compiled, would be a big hassle.  The feature had better be REAL
important, or it should be ommitted. Expert or not, you have to agree
that adding a new build dependancy is more of a hassle than not doing
so. 

I dont think that the comment had to do with moving chunks of code from
a '.cpp' file into a '.hpp' file, I think that would be silly (except
maybe for the way Boost.Test does it optionally  ...). 

-- John