Subject: Re: [boost] [Modularization] A new approach to header modularization
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-05-29 02:02:27
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:50 PM, <joaquin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Emil Dotchevski escribió:
>> 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.
>> 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
> Why there's pressure from users to keep Boost libs header-only? Boost is
> for the users, so their reasons should be given proper weight.
One can not create good design (in general, not just in software) by
asking the users what would they like.
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