Re: Revisiting the Directory Structure Proposal

From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-02-14 15:16:06

on 2/12/01 10:39 PM, Jens Maurer at Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden] wrote:

[SNIP]
> Due to other strong requirements, we're unable to group the include
> files in the library directory, however this is not the case for
> mandatory source files, I believe. In short,
> boost-root/.../library1/src  and  boost-root/.../library2/src
> is my preferred way, where the "src" component signals to any
> external build system that all files therein are mandatory source code
> for the library build.  The "src" component is to be defined for
> that purpose exclusively.
[TRUNCATE]

Not everyone uses automated build tools.  I think the main difficulty with
spreading mandatory source around sub-library directories was that, if a lot
of Boost libraries are needed, then you could have to put a lot of entries
in a source search directory list.  (If the encompassing "libs" directory
was put in, then there's a risk of the file search finding test/example
code.)  There would be one entry if all the mandatory source went in one
directory, a parallel to the "boost" directory for header files.

These directories wouldn't have to be flat.  (I think Beman had that fear in
one of his responses, from seeing other projects have a flat source
directory.)  This would require us to divide our files into more sub-domain
directories (numeric, iterator, text, etc.) like graph and python.

If we do this, should it be limited to headers and madatory source, or
should we explode each aspect to a root-level directory?  That would scatter
the parts of a particular sub-library, though.

-- 
Daryle Walker
Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie
darylew AT mac DOT com