Subject: Re: [boost] [Modularization] A new approach to header modularization
From: Christopher Jefferson (chris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-05-28 18:34:44
On 28 May 2009, at 22:45, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Daniel James <daniel_james_at_[hidden]
> > wrote:
>> Although, you can add me to the people who are currently happy enough
>> with the status quo.
> Me too, I don't understand what would this reorganization improve.
> What would make sense for me personally would be an effort to reduce
> physical coupling in Boost, by moving as much code as possible from
> headers to CPP files.
Out of interest, how would this help? The majority of libraries make
no attempt to maintain a stable API from version to version, so the
only gain I could see would be reduced compile time. Useful yes, but
not obvious helping maintence? Also, so many (all?) libraries use
templates, which won't go into cpp files.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk