Boost logo

Boost :

From: Greg Colvin (gcolvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-01-04 16:07:00

From: Nicolai Josuttis <nicolai.josuttis_at_[hidden]>
> Beman Dawes wrote:
> > One additional thought about #includes. Lots of boost code writes
> > them like this: #include <boost/operators.hpp>. It would be nice to
> > turn that into a hyperlink, perhaps keying on "boost/" after an
> > include.
> >
> Hmmm, that's difficult!
> First, do we have a policy to put all headers in a subdirectory boost?
> So far, I don't do it with my boost sources.
> Sorry for not knowing this.
> Second, as "..." usualy looks for local files and <...> for standard

That was my belief too, and I argued that our policy should be for
boost files to use
   #include "boost/operators.hpp"
but the C and C++ standards hint at little and promise nothing about how
"" and <> differ, and I'm told the "search local" vs. <search system>
convention is not so universal as I thought. But why we always use
   #include <boost/operators.hpp>
I don't recall.

> files and as I usually don't know the path to standard files
> this policy was a good way to handle all local stuff, which should be under
> investigation when writing programs.
> If I add the same for boost, where should I consider boost file
> to be in relation to the original file?
> - same directory?
> - subdirectory boost
> - sibling directory boost
> - ...

Good question. As is stands you would need to get your hands on the
system include path from the environment and go searching for boost.

> In any way, this would be a special hack for boost.
> So far, the script is generic for any C++ code.
> Is it worth it?

If you can get your hands on the include path in a portable way then
it remains generic. I don't know if awk allows this or not.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at