Re: [boost] Header dependency table

From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-08 08:56:56

On Thursday 08 August 2002 09:22 am, Beman Dawes wrote:
> One way to know what library a header belongs to is to require that headers
> include a comment that identifies the library.  Just change the format of
> comment we already recommend, and make it mandatory, at least in non-detail
> headers.
>
>    //  See http://www.boost.org/libs/graph/doc/index.html for
> documentation.
>
> That has advantages for the human reader of the header, too.
>
> What's the reaction to that?
>
> --Beman

I'm fine with that.

Just to toss out one more idea: we might also be able to go backwards. Scan 
the library documentation to see what headers are mentioned and associate 
those headers with the library documented. The headers mentioned are assumed 
to be the 'user-level' headers for that library, and anything else included 
by those headers is an implementation detail for that library. When you have 
an implementation detail header in library X that is a user-level header in 
another library, there is a library dependency. As a nice little by-product, 
it can easily identify undocumented headers and implementation-only headers 
not in a 'detail' subdirectory.

        Doug