Date: 2008-08-22 11:34:23
>>>That would make it possible to easily separate the compilation of
>>>boost classes (or at least their methods) from that of user-defined
>> No, unfortunately, it wouldn't, because you have to pull in the
>> definitions to use the template class, what you want is precompiled
>This is not exactly true. I already use such an approach in my own
>The idea is to use concepts to make sure that the right member
>functions are called inside a cpp file and therefore will be compiled
>and usable everywhere.That would mean pulling in all related
>implementation details... But only for one compilation unit (created
>with that purpose in mind). Other compilation units would only have
>access to template class definitions. For that matter, i personally
>use the .h extension for template class definitions and .hpp for
>template class method definitions (but that's only an example of what
>could be done).
>Note that i agree that it would also bring a readability benefit to
>the source code.
This sounds exactly like
what I am trying to do, I already split the declarations into .h files
and the definitions into .hpp. Can you give a brief example of using a
single .cpp file for compilation? Is this done like MSVC stdafx files?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk