From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-06 10:23:52
From: "Brey, Edward D" <EdwardDBrey_at_[hidden]>
> True, fine granularity give you complete flexability. There is no magic
> behind predefined groupings of classes. It is simply a matter of utility
> and a means to save the programmer time, just as is the purpose of the
> library as a whole. Just as there is value to letting users who need
> granularity have granularity, there is value to being able to drop a
> pointer module" into a pch and forget about it.
IOW, you are pro-smart_ptr.hpp, but not against shared_ptr.hpp. :-)
Your logic reminds me of the <std> discussion, where several people said, if
we're going to provide <std>, why not simply make all std:: names available
by default? This corresponds to a <std> precompiled header.
The "that class is already precompiled" argument only works when all of
boost/std is precompiled. I tend to think that programmers that have the
authority to decide what goes into the project PCH aren't our primary
audience; they'll take care of themselves either way.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk