From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-09 18:32:45
brass goowy wrote:
> This is a good example of the need for compilers that output the code they
> generate based on templates. If they did that, the library writer could
> have an online service that spits out the final deliverable rather than
> users having to maintain different versions of a library.
I don't understand the advantage over preprocessor configuration.
I don't really want to have to have a separate boost distribution
every time I want a different configuration.
> It is a slow
> and error prone process to rebuild a library/application as suggested here.
> Alternatively, service providers would have logging versions of their code available
> for users in the field, in effect eliminating the long and unproductive process of
> a rebuild.
How is this any better than just providing pre-built binaries.
Unless different configurations are ABI compatible, switching
configurations requires a re-build of all user code that
depends on the library regardless of how the configuration is
> Because the code is built by the service provider rather than less
> experienced users, configuration confusion is mitigated. As the needs here are
> pressing, we hope the problems with the status quo will be addressed sooner
> than later.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk