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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk