Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] namespace boost?
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-15 17:11:02

vicente.botet wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Denis Shevchenko" <for.dshevchenko_at_[hidden]>
> To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
> Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 9:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [boost] namespace boost?
>> 16.01.2011 00:49, vicente.botet ?????:
>>> I find useful to have the file that include all the other files at
>>> the boost directory level. As it is the case for Boost.Flyweight
>>> #include<boost/flyweight.hpp>
>> Hmm... But what if I want to update one header-only library? If I
>> have 'common' file that include all the other files at the boost
>> directory level, I must replace this file AND own directory. But if
>> all files placed in own directory, I replacing only it.
> You are right, and I forget often to replace this file, but usualy it
> doesn't changes to much. The ideal will be that this file include a
> all.hpp file included on the library directory. Other have proposed
> someting like
> #include<boost/flyweight/all.hpp>

or #include <boost/flyweight/include.hpp> for the convenience header.

actually, I might be ok with each library permitting ONE

#include<boost/flyweight.hpp> // convenience header.

I though I would prefer the former.

My normal practice is not to use these anyway but rather pick out
the specific one's I'm interested in. So it's not a huge issue for me.
The reason I do this is that I like knowing that I'm including only
the minimum required to get the job done. I recognise that tastes
differ on this. oh well.

> Vicente
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:

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