Re: [boost] [system] Why is this not header-only?

From: Martin Bonner (Martin.Bonner_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-03 12:07:38

----Original Message----
From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Julio M. Merino
Vidal Sent: 03 April 2007 17:00 To: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: Re: [boost] [system] Why is this not header-only?

> 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...

Static variable in an inline function.

-- 
Martin Bonner
Project Leader
PI SHURLOK LTD
Telephone: [phone] / 203894 (direct)
Fax: [phone]
Email: martin.bonner_at_[hidden]
www.pi-shurlok.com