Boost logo

Boost :

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-21 02:33:13

On Tuesday 21 December 2004 03:33, Daryle Walker wrote:

> > The proposed course of action is documented in:
> >
> >
> >
> > Now:
> >
> > 1. Are there any objections?
> Yes. I'm looking at:
> //====================================================
> 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.
> //====================================================
> I don't think any #include to the "libs" directory is a good idea. It
> works only if an expanded Boost archive stays as-is. If the
> sub-directories are scattered, e.g. to meet Unix header placements, then
> the idea fails. I think some existing code tries to #include "libs," that
> code should be changed. This could be a further argument to finally move
> mandatory source files to a distinct root-level directory.

That include of file in "libs" will be made from .cpp file. After
installation, that line will be already compiled to .obj, included in .so and
the include will not be visible by the user.

Do you still have the objection?

- Volodya

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