Boost logo

Boost :

From: mfdylan (dylan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-07 18:07:20

--- In boost_at_y..., "mfdylan" <dylan_at_m...> wrote:
> This only requires a single copy of every header file and
> simple tests - even detecting function vs variable additions could
> done without having to parse the whole file - for instance just
> for (...). It would break if someone did
> int variable; int function();
> But I would more than happily live with that!
I realise it would also not deal to well with introductions that
might cause existing code that compiles to fail - especially
ambiguous overloads. That case can be reasonably easily detected (at
least, for functions - for operators it starts to get difficult, but
I suspect there are other more hairy cases. It would probably come
down to determining a heuristic that caught 99% of cases, and making
sure you did a "standard" rebuild every now and then. Even with
current make systems it's not uncommon that a full rebuild of all
sources is necessary because a makefile is incorrectly configured or
a date/time stamp is wrong somewhere. Certainly we do all our
nightly release builds from scratch, which would I guess is fairly
common practice.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at