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

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Modularization: did we get it right?
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-15 10:15:02

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj_at_[hidden]> 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.

Why not symlinks. I've had really good results with the symlink
approach. Did I miss something?

--Beman