Re: [boost] [PREDEF] Review for the Boost.Predef library by Rene Riviera

Subject: Re: [boost] [PREDEF] Review for the Boost.Predef library by Rene Riviera
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-25 15:48:57

On 2/24/2012 7:49 AM, Mathias Gaunard wrote:
> On 02/24/2012 03:33 AM, Edward Diener wrote:
>
>> The current Boost.Config has one header per compiler so obviously it
>> does make sense. Another header attempts to figure out the compiler
>> being used and then the particular compiler's header is included. What
>> is so arcane about that ?
>
> Those are not "real" headers. You're not allowed to ever include one of
> those directly.
>
> Including any of those directly would open a whole can of worms. They
> don't even have include guards or anything of the sort.
>
> It could be argued that the extension should be changed from .hpp to .inl.

Or rather, .ipp, as that's what other Boost libraries use for internal 
headers. Or inside a detail directory. I should also point out that the 
same also really applies to my library. The non-top level headers could 
be rearranged as implementation details. And I mentioned before, could 
be moved so that concatenated headers are used.

-- 
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com
-- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com
-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail