From: John Maddock (jm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-16 06:46:09
> Well, it was intentional, if not very smart.
> The idea was that the config files essentially allowed workarounds for
> platform deficiencies, so if your platform was conformant, you did not
> need them. Including the config from the headers hides from the user his
> platform's deficiencies, whereas he should be (painfully) aware of them
> so as to complain to his vendor. Having to include the config files in
> user code was supposed to raise awareness of the problem. Of course, for
> the test files, they must be present.
> If this is found to be confusing or unwieldly, I can change.
Yes please, this approach is a sure fire way to confusion IMO, and is not
the way that the rest of boost is doing things...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk