Re: [boost] [Modularization] A new approach to header modularization

Subject: Re: [boost] [Modularization] A new approach to header modularization
From: Christopher Jefferson (chris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-03 14:46:33

On 3 Jun 2009, at 17:59, Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:

> On Wednesday 03 June 2009 15:00:43 Christopher Jefferson wrote:
>> Now lets imagine I want to include functional (a header-only  
>> library).
>>
>> #include <boost/functional.hpp> // Fails
>> #include <boost-1_39/boost/functional.hpp> // Fails with bizarre  
>> errors
>>
>> So I have to add:
>>
>> -I/usr/local/include/boost-1_39
>>
>> Which of course won't work if I then go to another computer, where
>> boost isn't in /usr/local/include
>
> I know this problem. A well-written Makefile should use variables  
> like CFLAGS,
> CXXFLAGS, CPPFLAGS and LDFLAGS. You can then create a simple script
>
>  export CXX=g++-4.4
>  export CC=gcc-4.4
>  export CPPFLAGS="-I /home/uli/include -I /home/uli/devel/Boost-trunk"
>  export LDFLAGS="-L /home/uli/lib"
>
> which sets up the environment accordingly. This requires people to  
> understand
> what these flags mean, but I don't think they can't learn that, and  
> the
> knowledge is even useful elsewhere.

That still doesn't solve the problem that the libraries' name is  
mangled strangely with the default build system (although not with -- 
layout=system it seems). Also, if I just want to transmit a file  
without a Makefile, for many libraries I still don't need even that.

Chris