From: Darren Garvey (lists.drrngrvy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-19 15:43:50
On 19/08/07, Martin Wille <mw8329_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Darren Garvey wrote:
> > Why do you not like the typedef-header scheme? Too fickle?
> It's fragile at the user's site. E.g. if a user uses two libraries that
> happen to #include two different Boost.CGI (tentative name :) headers
> then things break horribly. Of course, you could blame those libraries
> for their leaky abstractions, but the root cause is that you needlessly
> gave people a gun to shoot themselves in their feet.
Well two protocols can't ever be used in the same program, so I don't think
the situation you describe could ever arise. Also, if a library/program is
designed for only one protocol, a macro like 'BOOST_CGI_EXPLICIT_XCGI' could
be defined, which would mean that library can only be used with a particular
My lack of experience might be showing here though: this could for all I
know be a generally recognised timebomb...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk