From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-08 09:16:23
IIRC, your proposal below got general support, but we decided to defer
making the changes until after the 1.25.0 release in case there was any
fallout from the new config system.
Since then, (1) Daryle Walker added base from member stuff to utility.hpp
using your scheme, (2) there doesn't seem to be any serious fallout from
the new config system.
So why don't you go ahead and update CVS with your proposed changes.
>> * In order to derive from boost::noncopyable, I have to introduce a
>> dependency on boost/utility.hpp. Since headers with such names tend to
>> change frequently, this means frequent recompilations for no apparent
>This is a valid concern. In some sense, 'utility.hpp' is much like
>'smart_ptr.hpp' header (and a few others) - they both need to be
>This way those who don't care about unnecessary dependencies still could
>include 'boost/utility.hpp', and others who do, could happily go with
>Hmm.. here is a link to the proposed update to the library -
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/files/utility/. Basically, the new
>directory structure looks like this:
>and the documentation and examples were updated to reflect these changes.
>IMO, if we agree with these changes, cost of including
>'boost/utility/noncopyable.hpp' header would become a non-issue. BTW,
>Library reuse" page cities 'boost::noncopyable' as an "Example where
>boost component should certainly be used", see
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk