Boost logo

Boost :

From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-21 18:10:50

On 12/21/04 2:33 AM, "Vladimir Prus" <ghost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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.

So the #includes would be one file in "libs" including a sibling file in
"libs," right?

> Do you still have the objection?

Depends if compilers can easily be made to look for a source file's
siblings. (Since source files are listed in projects/makefiles directly,
their containing directories don't have to be in any search path.)

Daryle Walker
Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie
darylew AT hotmail DOT com

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