Subject: Re: [boost] [Modularization] A new approach to header modularization
From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-05-28 17:30:17
JOAQUIN M. LOPEZ MUÑOZ wrote:
> De: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] En nombre de Beman Dawes [bdawes_at_[hidden]]
> Enviado el: jueves, 28 de mayo de 2009 23:06
> Para: boost_at_[hidden]
> Asunto: Re: [boost] [Modularization] A new approach to header modularization
>> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:53 AM, troy d. straszheim
>> <troy_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> In no particular order:
>>> - There is still the toplevel filesystem.hpp and friends to deal with.
>> The way to deal with that is to migrate those to within the library's
>> header directory.
>> As boost grows, filling the boost/ with headers becomes less and less
> I don't see why this is less attractive than having boost/ filled with
>> Of course we have to leave the current headers there for
>> compatibiltiy, but that location could be deprecated and eventually
>> only <boost/filesystem/filesystem.hpp> supported.
> *This* is less attractive to me; I think a Boost lib is entitled to have
> at least one top level header; many use it to include all or the the most
> usual components.
I agree: one directory per library, and one optional convenience header
sounds like a good compromise to me.
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk