From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-20 15:03:14
Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
> "Tobias Schwinger" <tschwinger_at_[hidden]> wrote
>>A single-rooted approach might still be better:
>>or even (although Arkadiy pointed out it would be less CVS-friendly)
>>Now I could switch my include path to contain boost/a/typeof or to
>>boost/typeof_support respectively and thus enable typeof support for lib a
>>without changing my source code (as suggested by Andy elsewhere in this
> Note that disabling typeof support seems to be easily achieved by just
> defining BOOST_TYPEOF_NATIVE, which forces all the registrations to be
Yeah, right. Although that's not quite the same, is it?
Say I have an existing project and want to start using Typeof. There might me a
lot of already-written source code and I'd have to change all the includes therein
that refer to the libraries I want Typeof support for.
As an end user, I would definitely prefer changing my include directory over
changing all the includes (especially considering your own point that the Typeof
library is only a temporary solution).
The situation becomes even more delicate if I use a library that in turn uses a
some part of Boost. Now I can either go through the foreign code and figure out
what needs to be included or include Typeof support for the whole part of Boost my
library depends on.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk