Re: [boost] What would make tool authors happier..

Subject: Re: [boost] What would make tool authors happier..
From: John Maddock (jz.maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-02 14:48:19

> * Making the combined library headers go into boost-root/include. See
> separate post from Peter Dimov about this.
>
> This touches on #1 as it makes for a user and tool expected location. That
> is, users are accustomed to looking for a top level include. And having
> such a location would reduce the documentation and instruction needed to
> point them away from their intuitive behavior. External tools also expect
> to find such a directory for a library, which is what a monolithic Boost
> looks like to tools. Hence it would make it easier to use, incorporate,
> author, etc tools.
If we're going to do this, just do it, and take the consequences later ;)

> Second, it means formalizing and regulating the top level structure of
> libraries. For the longest time we've had an accepted top level structure.
> Unfortunately library authors have added to that top level structure. For
> example to manage "sub-libraries" or "sub-parts" of their library... Which
> is understandable. But it makes life more difficult for the tools that rely
> on the structure assertions. For example currently the testing scripts rely
> on people updating a single listing file at "boost-root/status/Jamfile.v2".
> When in an ideal world the test tools would be able to automatically
> discover that information. Practically it means that currently that Jamfile
> lists 127 test dirs. But a cursory discovery of test dirs goes up to a
> possible 197. As far as following the top-level library structure.. There
> are currently 279 files and directories at the library top level that are
> not in the accepted set (and I'm already excluding things like readmes and
> changelogs, even though changelogs should be in docs).
+1

Boost libraries should be following the common structure - as should the 
tools of course.

> Last, I would like to re/move the "boost-root/status" directory. Two
> options I'm considering are moving to be "boost-root/test" to match the
> usual name for testing scripts. Or removing it and replacing it logic in
> the regression tools that is equivalent (i.e. move the functionality to the
> separate regression git repo).
+1

Not so controversial after all, John.