Boost logo

Boost :

From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-22 09:40:57

On 8/22/05 9:12 AM, "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Daryle Walker <darylew_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> On 8/19/05 10:31 AM, "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> Daryle Walker <darylew_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> [SNIP]
>>>> Besides the caveats, you can just dump all the mandatory source code into
>>>> your IDE's project file (or make file) and don't worry Boost-Build.
>>> It isn't true. Some libraries need specific compiler/linker options
>>> on specific platforms.
>> [SNIP]
>> Maybe we should consider that (and the separate DLL thing) to be a bug?
> So you're giving me a choice between admitting there's a bug in my
> build specification or having my library fail to build on some
> platform?

I didn't know about the specific-options requirement. I feel we should
strive for our code to work without tweaks (but still be compatible with
tweaks that the user may add). I guess there's no way around it.

What build specification are you referring to?

>>> Whatever you think of Boost.Build, I don't see how underkill can work,
>>> and I don't see how libs/xxx/src/... is much worse than src/xxx/...
>> If the source files are in one location, it's easier to find out if a *.hpp
>> file has corresponding source. The user otherwise has to dig through a lot
>> of directories and/or documentation.
> Which source file corresponds to a header is not something that should
> usually be of concern to our users, and even when it is, it isn't
> worth reorganizing the Boost project structure for.

It is a concern if the user adds Boost sources to his/her project file
directly (instead of linking to a library pre-built by our scripts). I
think if we _require_ Bjam, Boost.Build, or similar to use Boost, then we
have failed.

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