Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Modularization: did we get it right?
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-11 22:36:33
on Fri May 11 2012, Beman Dawes <bdawes-AT-acm.org> wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Mathias Gaunard
> <mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 11/05/2012 01:55, Steven Watanabe wrote:
>>> The algorithm now looks like:
>>> If symlinks are supported:
>>> Â Sym link the directory
>>> Â if there is a conflict, create
>>> Â Â a subdirectory and symlink all
>>> Â Â the members.
>>> Else if hardlinks are supported:
>>> Â Hard-link all leaves
>>> Â Copy all leaves
>> You don't want to copy the leaves, but rather create a dummy file with a
>> #include directive with the relative path to the original.
> "Copy the leaves" if all else fails has the advantage of preserving
> existing uses (like HTML links) that won't be followed with a dummy
> forwarding #include. It may well be faster to use.
> OTOH, I can imagine cases on a Boost developer's machine where the
> developer would prefer dummy forwarding #includes.
> So perhaps exactly what happens if all else fails should be an
> option. A bit hard to know without some real-life experience.
If I were going to invest in this I'd use forwarding headers and a link
rewriter for the HTML. But I advise not investing too much in the
options here, as this whole monolithic arrangement should be
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk