Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Modularization: did we get it right?
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-15 08:36:17
On 05/15/2012 04:48 AM, Mathias Gaunard wrote:
> On 14/05/2012 23:35, Steven Watanabe wrote:
>> I disagree. I prefer copies for the following reasons:
>> a) Disk space is not an issue for me.
>> b) The copies can be used for any purpose,
>> not just compiling. In particular,
>> clicking through forwarding headers
>> in the IDE is annoying.
>> c) The behavior is more consistent.
>> Using copies, the preprocessor output
>> should be identical to the preprocessor
>> output to the preprocessor output using
>> I can see others preferring forwarding
>> headers, but "always" is too strong.
> Copies are not necessarily in sync with the original. Every time you
> modify the original, you need to regenerate the copies. That's not a
> very practical development environment.
Why? It's handled automatically. (Okay,
the patch I posted doesn't handle this
properly, but I've fixed it in my local
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk