Re: [boost] Boost.Threads, N2178, N2184, et al

From: Yuval Ronen (ronen_yuval_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-23 07:42:58

Peter Dimov wrote:
> Case A, call_once implemented in the header. You ship an improved 
> call_once.hpp. User program needs recompilation to take advantage of the 
> improvement.
> 
> Case B, call_once a thin wrapper over a C API, as in N2178. You ship an 
> improved .lib/.dll. User program doesn't need recompilation (lib) or relink 
> (dll).

Has anyone ever encountered a scenario where a new version of a library 
is published, and applications using it consider re-compiling a major 
(or even minor) drawback? And if so, why does Boost push so hard for a 
header-only implementation of its libraries? Isn't it a contradiction?