Boost logo

Boost :

From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-10 14:55:44

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:55:56 -0000, "Gustavo Guerra" <gmcg_at_[hidden]>

>Gennaro Prota wrote:
>> Well, the title says it all :-) I would like to have a separate source
>> file for the ubiquitous BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT. I have several files
>> that use BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT but no real config macro. For those
>> ones, I currently have something like
>> #include "boost/config.hpp" // for BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT
>> Wouldn't
>> #include "boost/config/static_constant.hpp"
>> be preferable?
>On the same spirit, I would like to request that boost::non_copyable be also
>moved to a separate header "boost/non_copyable.hpp" or
>"boost/utility/non_copyable", so we don't have to include the whole

Well, I don't know if it's on the same spirit :-) The intent of a
separate static_constant.hpp was not to include "less code" (that's
not the case since static_constant.hpp would, in turn, include
config.hpp, to see whether the compiler supports in class
initialization. Also, for backward compatibility, suffix.hpp would
include static_constant.hpp).

Analogously, I agree with your request about non_copyable, but not to
economize on the amount of code included; it's instead for a logical
reason: having all the 'utilities' in a header (or even in a folder)
named "utilities" has the same logic than, say, having all the
templates of your application in a header named templates.hpp or all
your constants in constant.hpp (I would add: or all standard
algorithms in a header named algorithm ;-)). Do we find it a logical
logic? :-)


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