Re: [boost] command line parser review

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-28 11:56:58

At 11:03 PM 5/27/2003, Tanton Gibbs wrote:

 >Since there have been a few emails bouncing around, I'd like to chime in
 >with my opinions on a few matters.
 >
 >1. Static vs Shared
 >I would much prefer header files only instead of a shared 
library.  Having
 >to deal with shared libraries are a pain on many systems (such as 
cygwin).
 >Using a header file is clean and easy -- therefore much preferred by me.
 >One of the biggest benefits to boost is that it is primarily header files
 >only.  I don't even use the regex library because I can't get it to build 

 >on Tru64.

We really need to avoid making important library decisions based on broken 
compilers. For a command line parser, the decoupling provided by separate 
compilation seems to far outweigh the minor benefits of a header-only 
implementation. Just my opinions, of course.

--Beman