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 15:56:38

On 2/23/2012 8:33 PM, Edward Diener wrote:
> On 2/23/2012 4:52 AM, Mathias Gaunard wrote:
>> On 02/22/2012 09:28 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>>
>>> What you are suggesting effectively sounds like throwing all kinds of
>>> structure and file organization away that makes sense for us mere humans
>>> just to compile a little faster. Please, back it up with some proof.
>>> Additionally, i would like to add that a fine grained header file
>>> organization also leads to less includes. One might always need
>>> everything defined in the library in one TU. I claim that having those
>>> big headers is slowing the process down.
>>
>> Detecting the compiler is a global process, and requires knowledge about
>> all the other compilers.
>>
>> In particular, order in which compilers are detected matters so that
>> Clang is not detected as GCC.
>>
>> So it makes sense to only have one header for all compilers; all other
>> approaches are likely to be dangerous or broken.
>>
>> Having one header per compiler doesn't make sense. It should never be
>> allowed to include just one compiler header.
>
> 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 ?

I think the objection with the way Predef does it is that in order to 
have all the negative definitions (#define XYZ 0) all the headers for a 
particular category need to be included.

-- 
-- 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