Subject: Re: [boost] [Modularization] A new approach to header modularization
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-05-28 19:00:40
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Christopher Jefferson
> 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]>
>>> 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
It would help maintenance in two ways:
- by minimizing the number of compilation units that need to be
recompiled when making a change
- by minimizing the amount of code that's visible to the compiler for
each compilation unit when it does need to be recompiled
> Also, so many (all?) libraries use templates, which won't go into
> cpp files.
Many function templates have parts that don't depend on template
parameters and could be separated in a cpp file. Also, many Boost
headers contain regular (non-template) inline functions, because
there's pressure from users (and developers) to keep Boost libraries
Reverge Studios, Inc.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk