Re: [boost] [Stacktrace] Second review begins today 17th Mar ends 26th Mar

Subject: Re: [boost] [Stacktrace] Second review begins today 17th Mar ends 26th Mar
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-19 23:30:52

> Peter did not suggest not using windows.h itself AFAICS. He just
> suggested that stacktrace functionality which does not need it be
> segregated into specific headers which do not include it. Furthermore if
> stacktrace still has the general header, and promotes the use of it,
> rather than specific headers, that's fine as long as the end-user has a
> choice. OTOH if stacktrace functionality which appears not to need the
> constructs in windows.h still does need it under the covers in the
> header only version of the library, then I understand Antony's objection.

If you choose the null backend, then yes windows.h should not be included.

If you choose the non-null backend, which needs to open up a COM session
with the Debug Engine to debug the calling executable, I think windows.h
(and the COM headers which are also massive) pretty hard to avoid.

And for the record, I too feel little love for windows.h, though they do
provide NOMINMAX and WIN32_LEAN_AND_MEAN to make the problem less awful.
One HUGE win with C++ Modules will be that we can finally work around
windows.h once and for all.

Niall

-- 
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/