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

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Modularization: did we get it right?
From: Bjørn Roald (bjorn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-17 01:41:02

On 05/12/2012 04:36 AM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> If I were going to invest in this I'd use forwarding headers and a link
> rewriter for the HTML.

Agree. At least for headers.

Based on some experience, I think the really annoying thing is to have 
your editor or IDE during debugging or from log files or build output, 
take you to the trouble spot in your code.  You see the problem, but do 
not realize you are in the *wrong* place.  So you fix it - you think.

So what happens then.  If you are lucky, the build fails on next compile 
as it realizes the content of the derived file, the copy, has changed.  
But most build tools may not, as the the derived file has been edited.  
So it is more likely you discover a lot of your changes are overwritten 
next time you do a rebuild all or make clean.

Making the copies read-only may help a bit and remind the anyyed earlier 
of the issue, but I think forwarding headers is better.  If the 
indirection annoys you in other ways, use a more appropriate file system.

> But I advise not investing too much in the
> options here, as this whole monolithic arrangement should be
> short-lived.

I am curious why you consider installing headers for build part of a 
monolitic arrangement.

-- 
Bjørn