Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Modularization: did we get it right?
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-21 12:54:25
on Thu May 17 2012, BjÃ¸rn Roald <bjorn-AT-4roald.org> wrote:
> 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
> 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
>> But I advise not investing too much in the
>> options here, as this whole monolithic arrangement should be
> I am curious why you consider installing headers for build part of a
> monolitic arrangement.
I don't. I consider *forwarding* headers part of a monolithic
arrangement. When you build modularized Boost using CMake no such
headers are needed.
-- 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