Re: [boost] Boost Modularization: did we get it right?

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Modularization: did we get it right?
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-15 08:41:47

on Mon May 14 2012, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> AMDG
>
> On 05/11/2012 07:36 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>> 
>> on Fri May 11 2012, Beman Dawes <bdawes-AT-acm.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> "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. 
>> 
>> Like, always.
>> 
>
> 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
>    links.
>
> I can see others preferring forwarding
> headers, but "always" is too strong.

OK, thanks for setting me straight on that point.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com