Re: [boost] Proposal for #pragma once support

Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for #pragma once support
From: John Phillips (phillips_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-09 15:57:25

Zachary Turner wrote:

> I agree that it would need to be automated.  But the script itself should be
> very trivial, I'd be willing to try it myself.  And perhaps the best
> approach is what I mentioned in a previous post, to force the programmer to
> explicitly define BOOST_USE_PRAGMA_ONCE before including a boost header
> file.  This would solve the problem of having to modify every header when
> new compilers were released.  And since by default it would be undefined, an
> out-of-the-box boost installation would work exactly as it does now.  I'll
> work on this a bit later today perhaps, and try to post some benchmarks for
> for compiling boost itself, and for compiling a commercial product which
> uses boost.
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> 

   I have a dim memory that there used to be some libraries that did not 
have include guards, and would fail without them because of recursive 
use of headers. Is that still true, or am I hallucinating about it?

   This would complicate the script somewhat.

                        John