Re: [boost] Should Boost adopt pimpl/d-pointer as much as it can?

Subject: Re: [boost] Should Boost adopt pimpl/d-pointer as much as it can?
From: Artyom (artyomtnk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-21 16:16:33

<snip>
> Artyom wrote:
> >> I think pimpl should be used on by case basis,
> because it
> >> doesn't make sense in every library Boost has. 
> > 
> <snip>
> > I agree, but I think that there should be policy that
> recommends
> > doing that for relevant parts.
> > 
> <snip>
> If you look at the archives of this mailing list, you will
> see that there was a concerted effort to keep libraries
> header-only in order to avoid the myriad of problems
> involved in ensuring that boost libraries are compiled with
> ALL required settings to be compatible with the users' build
> targets.

I would only add one single notice:

[Sarcasm]
  I would only rephrase you a little:

   in order to avoid the myriad of problems
   involved in ensuring that boost libraries are compiled with
   **one specific** compiler on **one** specific operating system
   where compiler run-times are not backward compatible between releases
   and even between debug/release builds, where is 
   no standard naming conventions for various libraries types even exists,
   and building shared library requires extraordinary skills and lots 
   of non-trivial configuration macros in order to get it done right.
[/Sarcasm]

Please, no offense all MSVC/MS Windows users,
I agree, you (and me too) should not suffer this hell every day...

-----

But still, I think that creation of header only libraries just in order
to simplify build procedures, IMHO, are just not justified.

Libraries are not designed for simple users they are designed for
developers that should be capable to solve these problems.

Best,
  Artyom