From: Johan Torp (johan.torp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-18 15:30:48
> > In http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2003/08/50815.php, the
> > possibility of adding a macro to boost/config.hpp, which basically
> > would result in including .cpp-files from headers, is mentioned. Are
> > there any plans of adding such a macro or is it a bad idea?
> I think it's a bad idea, because of the binary size issue above. Is
> there any particular reason why you'd like Signals to live entirely
> in headers?
I am introducing boost in a software project and I thought we'd start
out by using the header-only libraries, that's all. Well, I also had
problems compiling boost on my home computer.
If the code size increase really is dramatic I understand your
position, otherwise it would be nice to let the users choose. If there
is a demand for it, that is. I suppose it would mess up the code a bit
too, wouldn't it? Has any other projects done it?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk