Re: [boost] Boost policy for putting headers in boost/ Was: #3541 Support <boost/ptr_map.hpp>

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost policy for putting headers in boost/ Was: #3541 Support <boost/ptr_map.hpp>
From: Christopher Jefferson (chris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-23 12:17:09

On 23 Oct 2009, at 16:39, Stewart, Robert wrote:

> Christopher Jefferson wrote:
>> On 23 Oct 2009, at 16:04, Stewart, Robert wrote:
>>
>>>> I very rarely tab-complete header file names, and I suspect most
>>>> users
>>>
>>> Your usage patterns are limited to your coworkers and your
>>> environment.  Mine suggests that there are a great many people who
>>> use tab completion constantly.
>>
>> Out of interest, why do you assume I only know about my
>> coworkers and
>> environment, whereas you know about a great many people who are
>> annoyed by tab completion failing?
>
> I made no such claim.  I asserted my annoyance.  You claimed to know  
> that most users would not do so.  I refuted your claim as being  
> based upon your personal experience.  I then asserted my own  
> personal experience as being at least partly contrary to your own.

Stepping back for a moment, I think we both (certainly I have) may  
have read a stronger claim into your e-mails then you intended to  
make. In particular, I think I may well have seen red at the words  
"breaking change" in regards to changing libraries, because we came  
within a thin margin of throwing boost out of an open source project I  
work on about a month ago.

Boost can be quite hard to use in open source projects, where a user  
might have some version of boost installed by their packaging manager  
(which might be yum, apt-get, macport, cygwin,etc), and not want to go  
and have to install another version manually if it can be avoided.

However, the issue of if any changes are made gradually, or in one  
break, is different from what kind of include names are used. It is  
unfortunate that it is perhaps not advisable to use both at once, as  
one of the major arguments in favour of all.hpp is that the  
alternative breaks tab completion.

I do hope, modulo phasing in over a number of versions to minimising  
breaking, that one standard can be agreed on. In general I prefer one  
standard over several!

Chris