RE: [boost] Stupid Win32 DLL vs Static question

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-01-12 09:15:35

At 10:46 AM 1/12/2001 +0100, Schaible, Joerg wrote:

 >>What did you do about the warning messages?  (See below.)
 >
 ><g>
 >
 >#pragma warning( disable : 4251 )	// needs dll-interface
 >
 >// here comes the class definition
 >
 >#pragma warning( default : 4251 )	// needs dll-interface
 >
 >This warning can be ignored if the base class is implemented completly
 >inline and has no static member variables. Unfortunately you have to wrap
 >all your classes that separate the implementation and derive from a
 >complete
 >inline class with this pragmas. I managed to compile VC6 STL code really
 >without any warning in level 4, but that is nothing I would advice for
 >boost
 >- unless you are willing to clatter the complete source with such kind of
 >pragmas.

Agreed.  I'm not about to suggest messing up perfectly clean code like 
boost::noncopyable with VC++ pragmas.  To do it consistently, it would have 
to be done to classes which might be used as base classes even though they 
usually aren't.  Ugh.

 >>I think I'll
 >>just move the timer, etc., implementation into the headers and be done
 >with
 >
 >>it.  Slightly poorer encapsulation, but much less aggravation.
 >
 >I always vote encapsultaion :)

I probably shouldn't have said encapsulation.  It is really more a case of 
slightly increased coupling in the .hpp's to some standard library headers. 
But if there is a problem with those headers, the .cpp's won't compile 
anyhow, so I'm not sure it really matters much.

Thanks,

--Beman