Subject: Re: [boost] [Modularization] A new approach to header modularization
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-05-28 16:40:29
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Ilya Sokolov <ilyasokol_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Beman Dawes wrote:
> Looks ugly for my taste, sorry.
It is somewhat ugly. But the alternatives, including our current
scheme, are also somewhat ugly.
>> In theory, the root/libs/... tree isn't needed anymore. In practice we
>> might want to keep a root/libs/libname/index.html entry for each library so
>> docs links don't break.
>> Apologies if someone already suggested this approach. It is so simple I
>> can't believe someone didn't already suggest it.
>> Unless I'm missing something, this is the only approach that appears to do
>> fairly well for all of the Goals/Objectives/Needs/Wants,
> It doesn't make dependencies of header-only libraries explicit.
Dependencies are a separate issue. AFAICS, that's also true for the
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk