|
Boost : |
From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-22 22:14:00
I started a thread about a month ago mentioning that the header file
dependencies were out of date. Has there been any work to bring them up to
date ?
I think a good other way to specify dependencies is to make a tree of what
general implementations are dependent on other general implementations, and
then list all of the header files for a given implementation. This would
allow someone distributing a particular implementation with their code,
let's take boost::function as an example, to also distribute all the header
files for the implementations which boost::function uses ( and of course
recursively for any of those other implementations ), and would give
distributors a fighting chance of successfully distributing something less
than the entire Boost header files. I realize that config and its header
files must be distributed with everything, but I don't think it should be
necessary to have to ditsribute all of the headers each time a small number
of implementations are used.
An example of such a useful tree format, would be:
boost::function
boost::mem_fn
boost::xxx
etc.
boost::function header file
etc.
boost::mem_fn
boost::yyy
etc.
boost::mem_fn header file
etc.
etc.
Such a tree would have the minimum amount of redundancy, but by following
through starting at a particular implementation, one could know what header
files to distribute, even if one distributed a few extra header files for a
particular implementation which might not be needed by actual usage. I
consider this type of dependency tree easier for the purposes of
distribution than an accurate header-by-header tree, and it should certainly
be easier to create for users of Boost implementations.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk