Re: [boost] Header only pro's and con's?

From: Martin Schulz (Martin.Schulz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-04 15:34:08

> Note that other than the header-only approach and the traditional
static or
> shared libraries, you can also create an ad-hoc static library by
simply
> including the necessary .cpp files into exactly one translation unit
of your
> executable. This works around the ABI problem but keeps the compile
times and
> code size reasonably low. Note that Boost doesn't support this mode at
the
> moment, but I think I'm going to implement this and also push it
upstream
> soon. You can vote for me. ;)

Please have a look at the 

#include <boost/test/included/unit_test.hpp>

Header. IIRC this does exactly what you are suggesting (therefore at
least part of Boost supports it already). I personally find this mode
quite comfortable. 

Yours,
-- 
Dr. Martin Schulz (schulz_at_[hidden])
Senior R&D Engineer 
Synopsys GmbH 
Karl-Hammerschmidt-Str. 34
D-85609 Dornach, Germany
Munich office: [phone]
Home office:   [phone]
http://www.synopsys.com