From: Julio M. Merino Vidal (jmmv84_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-03 11:59:58
On 02/04/2007, at 19:11, Andrey Semashev wrote:
> Although the discussion is slipping away from the original question, I
> must say I 100% agree with Jeff. The best solution is to give user a
> choice whether to link or to go header-only (where possible). And in
> my opinion such solution should be unified for all boost libs.
> We already have the BOOST_USE_WINDOWS_H macro, why not extend it to
> something like BOOST_USE_OS_NATIVE_HEADERS? I think this would settle
> the problem once and for all. The only problem is I'm not sure how
> such a transition should be organized.
Although I liked this at first too, it seems to me it cannot be
always implemented. I was now trying to add a singleton to my
library and I can't do it with headers alone. I need to maintain
the pointer to the global instance somewhere, and that means having a
global variable which cannot be defined in a header (or otherwise
you'll get duplicates). Unless I'm missing something, that is...
-- Julio M. Merino Vidal <jmmv84_at_[hidden]>
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk