From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-20 00:58:45
David Abrahams wrote:
> > It seems reasoable, because it's not templated code. Creating a library
> > will lead to a set of other problems. If both serialization and
> > program_options need to use utf library, then, should they link to that
> > new library, or ask that users link to the new library themself?
> > Since it case of static libraries it's not possible to link utf into
> > program_options, seems like the user would have to link utf manually.
> > Hmm... that's not good, but I don't see better solution.
> For now you could put it in an unnamed namespace and just compile it into
> both of the libraries via #include.
Yeah, I think that's possible. So I'm going to:
1. put new header to boost/detail
2. put new source to libs/detail/utf
3. #include new source in program_options.
Objections? As I understood, Robert does not mind to have this issue handed to
me. Robert, would you want me to change serialization to include the file,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk