Re: [boost] namespace boost?

Subject: Re: [boost] namespace boost?
From: Patrick Horgan (phorgan1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-15 17:44:53

On 01/15/2011 02:11 PM, Robert Ramey wrote:
> 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.
Your compiler loves you for this, less work to do.  I do the same, 
because it is less work for the compiler, because I worry about side 
effects from things I don't need, because I don't know without close 
examination if any extra memory will be used by including something I 
don't need, and because by including the minimum I need I can convince 
myself that I have a deeper understanding.

All of this implies that I prefer people to break things into different 
headers more intelligently, i.e. if something is used in multiple places 
it should have a separate header so I don't get extra stuff I don't need 
by including something I do need.  That's one of my pet peeves.

Of course I have no objection to the existence of a parent include file 
that includes everything for people that don't want to think about it 
and to treat a particular part of a project as a black box.  I do that 
sometimes too.  There's not enough time in the world to become an expert 
on everything, (gad that's so frustrating, isn't it?!).

Patrick