Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-16 18:02:25

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Squyres" <jsquyres_at_[hidden]>

> Going with a "make install" concept would make this point moot; library
> authors would be much freer to do what they wanted/needed in their own
> directories. With that concept, only the install tree structure would be
> important.

I like this idea a lot, both for ease of maintenance and because I
build/test with multiple compilers and sometimes for multiple targets. Once
I boostified py_cpp and the headers became separated from the associated
source files, maintenance became painful. I used to switch between related
sources and headers with a single keystroke, but now I find myself
navigating up and down a directory hierarchy. Of course, I use the One True
Editor (emacs) so I'm sure I could program it to do what I want, but I'm not
elisp guru yet...

Anyway, my one concern is that it be possible to set up include paths so
that test programs can be compiled to #include files from the development
tree just as though they were #including the same files from the install
tree. If that doesn't work, testing and maintenance will only be more
painful than they currently are.


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