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: 2012-05-21 12:54:25

on Thu May 17 2012, Bjørn 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
> 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.

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