From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-07 13:04:48
On Thursday 07 June 2001 01:42 pm, you wrote:
> > IMO the files function0->9.hpp should be moved into the detail
> > subdirectory. The user isn't expected to include just one of them and
> > they are just an implementation detail.
> > -gary-
> > gary.powell_at_[hidden]
> Under some circumstances, users will be expected to include only a few of
> function[0-9].hpp functions but not function.hpp.
> Binary compatibility is the most often-cited reason for having the
> function[0-9] classes... If the "function" class is expanded from 9 to 12
> arguments, everything that uses "function" directly will need to be
> recompiled. However, if functionN classes are used, no recompilation is
> Perhaps a more thorough treatment of the numbered classes should be added
> the documentation with the binary compatibility argument.
> And some test case code as well. Currently all of them call it through
> function<> which exists only in function.hpp
> BTW, if I modify library code I expect the project to recompile. That one
> of the reasons I don't update the libraries in my projects frequently.
People often seem to expect that minor releases won't affect the binary
compatibilty. I'm mostly concerned with the use of shared libraries which
don't get updated nearly as often as they should :)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk