From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-20 10:35:56
Vladimir Prus wrote:
>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.
Fine. I'll #include new source in serialization as well so we'll all be in
the same page.
Question. Does this not mean that this if an application includes both the
serialization package as well as the program options package that some
linkers will fail to links with a duplicate symbol message?
I would also like to see
1. The documentation page and test moved to a neutral spot.
2. Could you examine my version and your version and reconcile any
differences. Given Rene's observations, I made a pass and fixed the issues
he mentioned. It's a could of changes but they are small and make things
much more transparent and reliable. I've also tested them on a variety of
compilers and feel much better about it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk