Subject: Re: [boost] [Modularization] A new approach to header modularization
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-05-29 02:22:45
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Joaquin M Lopez Munoz <joaquin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Emil Dotchevski <emildotchevski <at> gmail.com> writes:
>> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:50 PM, <joaquin <at> tid.es> wrote:
>> > 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.
> I'd rather not go into discussing such far-reaching issues
> as design theory, but you haven't asked my question:
> What are the particular reasons why users demand header-only
Probably different users have different reasons. One reason might be
that it makes Boost easier to install initially. What's your point?
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