From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-19 16:37:36
Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
> "Tobias Schwinger" <tschwinger_at_[hidden]> wrote
>>^^^ Sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Would you elaborate, please?
> If I have all the types registered in the same header, and
> if I add a new type, then
> this registration header needs to be modified to register the new type.
> At this point I have to rebuild all the sources that use typeof on _any_
>>Well, I guess we're going to go for #1 then.
> Well, I just pointed out a few benefits of #1, but I am by no means sure
> that it's perfect, and even the best of three...
The benefits you pointed out weren't entirely unimportant ones.
From my perspective #1 seems to be the best solution we have so far, because its
drawbacks are the least lethal ones.
Someone with another, possibly better idea out there?
>>Where should the header go?
> No, definitely not under boost/typeof :-)
> I think the registration should be [conceptualy] owned by the library
> authors rather then typeof library, so I still think boost/<LIB>/typeof is
> more appropriate. When I was talking about non-intrusiveness I meant files,
> not directories. It is also much easier to work with CVS when everything is
> under the same root.
OK -- boost/<LIB>/typeof, then.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk