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

From: Sohail Somani (s.somani_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-03 19:11:39

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Jeff Garland
> 
> > I'm going to say that people have problems building boost with bjam
> > unless you can prove otherwise. In my opinion, bjam is the 
> blocker. Not
> > the fact that you have to build some files. Boost.Config is 
> the key to
> > making it easy.
> 
> Nope, but realize, it's not just bjam -- it's more 
> complicated than that. 
> That might have actually compiled boost.  At a minimum, 
> though they have to 
> pick the right lib version: debug-multithread, 
> release-nomulththread, etc -- 
> so there's a bit of work there.

Yes but if you compile boost along with your code, what is the problem?
I used to be of the opinion that I should use pre-built boost. Not
anymore. I prefer building it myself. 

Why should I compile a piece of code more than once in a specific build?
If 3 different libraries in my build use boost regex, well damnit I
don't want to build boost regex 3 times!

> I"m a little confused.  The official build system is bjam for 
> all libs, tests, 
> examples.  Some libs provide other options.  As you say, it's 
> not that hard in 
> some IDE's to include the files into your own library, but 
> it's not really 
> that hard to run bjam either.  My only point is that it's 
> harder and it's 
> off-task.

It is *definitely* harder to run bjam than add the cpp files to your
"project". I think I can say this as a Boost user. I say this also while
watching another email popping into the inbox with "Troubles with build
boost".

Ok, self-configuring hpp files are great. Why not have self-configuring
cpp files?

Another reason is that I am of the opinion that if boost regex cannot be
built with certain warnings on, that should not affect the rest of my
code. Well, with header-only, it does. Should I be punished for this?

> > Am I the only one on this list who thinks this way (or is willing to
> > speak up about it)? I've seen developers refuse to work on a library
> > until they've factored it into appropriate separately 
> compiled units.
> 
> I'm completely lost what you mean now...

I mean, there have been cases where people have had to work on a library
where a sh*tload of code is in the header, but they refused to work on
that code until it was separately compiled, appropriately inlined
functions and templates excluded obviously.

Sohail

PS: I already get punished with boost.thread if I disable language
extensions with MSVC. I've come to terms with it.