Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost policy for putting headers in boost/ Was: #3541 Support <boost/ptr_map.hpp>
From: Nevin Liber (nevin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-23 14:45:48

2009/10/23 Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]>

> Joel de Guzman wrote:
> > Fusion simply follows existing practice and
> > extends it to
> > the next level of modularity. There were two existing practice at the
> > time when I wrote fusion:
> >
> > lib/
> > lib.hpp
> >
> > and
> >
> > lib/
> > lib/lib.hpp
> >
> > I find the latter redundant. I chose to follow the first.

+1, if I had to pick.

I really dislike things like all.hpp, as they end up turning into misnomers.
 I am willing to reconsider this position when gcc -Wall gets fixed into
showing all warnings. :-)

> IOW, there isn't one approach now. If we adopt a single approach, some
> code will break. Granted, in the latter case, lib/lib.hpp can be copied to
> lib.hpp and thus make it like the former, but at some point, lib/lib.hpp
> should be removed, and that will be a breaking change.

Why should it be removed? I can see picking a convention for future
libraries and having a passionate volunteer (any takers? :-)) adding that
convention to the current libraries, but I don't think cleaning up minor
clutter is a good enough reason to break compatibility.

Nevin Liber  <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden]>  (847) 691-1404
Sent from Chicago, IL, United States

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at