From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-09 13:12:01
From: Daniel James <daniel_at_[hidden]>
> Joaquín Mª López Muñoz wrote:
> > Daniel James ha escrito:
> > Why not? Sure it has the overhead of checking validity against
> > every new stdlib that comes around, but you've already commited
> > to this kind of activity with the workarounds on float_functions.hpp
> > Besides, the amount of work needed to accommodate a new
> > library is 0 in most cases and negligible in the rare cases where
> > extra template parms are used.
> Sorry, I meant: 'I'm not happy with the current situation either'.
> I suppose if there are any real problems with providing our own
> declarations then someone will point them out soon. Anyone?
Such forwarding headers would be a real boon as a separate Boost
library, if avoiding the unnecessary inclusion of standard
library headers is a compile-time performance win. Peter
suggests that it really doesn't matter much. I guess you'd have
to create them and run tests against a large body of code to see
what impact it actually has on build times.
-- Rob Stewart stewart_at_[hidden] Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk