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:
>>> 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
> 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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk