Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-07 20:47:41

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ullrich Koethe" <koethe_at_[hidden]>

> Sorry. I thought, having this stuff (several files) in an own directory
> would make sense.

Maybe, but it also makes sense to have it as part of the test or example
suite. The duplication of is definitely problematic.

> > > > Probably the best solution would chain the name_holders into a
stack, in
> > case a
> > > > module might be initialized during another module's initialization.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sounds right to me. Can you add that?
> >
> > Sure, it would be easy. But is it needed for anything we're currently
> > If so, should I add it to an existing branch?
> So far, it works without that addition.

But in your version you've commented out the assert. I'd really like to know
why two module_builders end up existing at the same time in your scenario.

> If you added this, branch
> 'shared_modules' would sound like a logical place.

I think I'll wait for your analysis of when the assert fires before I do

> Will be back on Monday!

Okay, talk to you then.

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