Re: [boost] config.hpp - improving utility and ease of maintenance

From: Vesa Karvonen (vesa.karvonen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-01 06:51:18

From: "John Maddock" <John_Maddock_at_[hidden]>

> 1) I believe it is vital to separate configuration options into 3
separate
> and orthogonal categories: the compiler, the standard library, and the
> platform.

I agree.

> 2) We really need a method to regression test the boost configuration -
in
> fact I think that this should come *before* changes to config.hpp are
> committed.

Definitely.

> 4) I would prefer to see a "tidier" directory structure than the one
Vesa
> has come up with (echoing Jens' comments), and in fact I believe this is
> possible if we change include directories to defines, imagine that
> config.hpp looks like this:

I have considered this earlier, but I didn't like the idea of using macros
with #include statements. IMO it is a workable solution, and has some
appeal, but it makes including the config headers a special case and adds
more macros.

It also breaks backwards-compatibility, which was previously considered
essential.