From: Gary Powell (Gary.Powell_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-02-13 15:24:59
> Then we will decide on one or the other. How? I don't know. Let's see
> what the response is to your proposal. But we will make a decision one
> or another. Directory structure uncertainties are holding up other
> important things (like a build system.)
My favorite way of solving this sort of problem is to try it with the
understanding that if the arrangement doesn't work out, it will change. The
trick is to spot the problems before you end up with 1K of files to move
My preferred file discovery for boost is
I would prefer that EVERY group required a subdirectory even if it only held
one file. The more compilers we support the more likely that each library
will have multiple detail files as well as multiple source/include files.
This would allow recompilation without re-editing the source. The greater
the number of cross linking between boost files, the less likely we will
want to change the structure until it collapses in on itself and we are left
with a huge editing job just among the boost source, plus making users of
boost mad at us.
The nice thing about multiple subdirectories is that it is very clear what
the logical design groupings are. As well as if we offer multiple versions
of things for a similar problem area its easier to do a drop in replacement.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk