Re: [boost] New libraries should provide forward declarations? (Benoit))

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-22 20:46:31

on Fri Aug 22 2008, rtsweng-sw-AT-yahoo.com wrote:

>>>>That would make it possible to easily separate the compilation of 
>>>>boost classes (or at least their methods) from that of user-defined 
>>>>classes. 
>>> No, unfortunately, it wouldn't, because you have to pull in the 
>>> definitions to use the template class, what you want is precompiled 
>>> headers. 
>
>>This is not exactly true. I already use such an approach in my own 
>>developments. 
>>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. 
>
>>Benoît 
>
>
> 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?

For what it's worth, the Boost convention is that all C++ filenames end
in "pp".  Those who follow the convention tend to use ".ipp" files for
implementation headers.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com