Subject: Re: [boost] directory structure
From: Mario Mulansky (mario.mulansky_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-11-15 09:32:21
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 03:20:19 pm Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Mario Mulansky <mario.mulansky_at_[hidden]>
> >> 1) I think sub-libraries work best when they're related mini-libraries:
> >> utility is a good example.
> >> 2) Personally I find extra long include paths a pain, especially if
> >> boost/mylib is already subdivided.
> >> So I would prefer larger standalone lib's to go directly in boost/mylib
> >> and smaller mini-libs either under the banner of an existing lib, or
> >> under a subcategory such as boost/utility.
> > Ok following this argument we should release odeint also directly in
> > boost/odeint and not (as is now) boost/numeric/odeint.
> > It doesnt matter too much to me, although some consistency would be nice,
> > I think?
> Simplicity is nice too. What's gained from boost/numeric/odeint?
> boost/odeint is shorter and simpler.
I agree. Our initial thought was that libraries with similar purposes should
be put together, based on the observation that ublas is in boost/numeric. It
appears now that this is indeed an exception and the general approach is
rather to put libraries directly in the top directory. Maybe we will change
that for the release of odeint, this would break existing code but in a very
easily fixable way, I suppose.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk