From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-05 15:00:24
"Anthony Williams" <anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Matt Hurd <matt.hurd_at_[hidden]> writes:
> I think we should try and make it a header-only library akin to most of
> rest of boost, if we can; having to link in a separate library is a source
> pain for users, especially if it has to be linked as a separate DLL. I
> appreciate that there are some areas which might require this, but if we
> avoid the requirement when these areas are not used, that would be good
> pay for what you don't use).
Header-only libraries can be useful, but not if that means they have to
include system headers. That is a disqualifier for portable code - too many
really bad experiences with macros in system headers.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk