Re: [boost] Header Inclusion practices

Subject: Re: [boost] Header Inclusion practices
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-04-13 15:37:10

On 4/12/17 11:40 PM, Olaf van der Spek via Boost wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Robert Ramey via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Hmmm, I'm not seeing this.  Actually my motivation is to not avoid breaking
>> things when files are moved.  When the library is moved the tests still
>> build and run without having to change switches, environmental variables
>> etc.
>
> If you move the including file into a sub directory or parent
> directory, it'll know longer be able to do the relative include,
> unless you move the entire library / tree.

Right - which is what I recommend. I see the library as something which 
should be handled as unit.  I would like to see users

a) move the library around as a package.
b) easily run tests and examples when they first download the library.
c) easily re-run tests and examples anytime their environment changes - 
new compiler version, etc.
d) easily remove the library from their system should it fail to address 
their needs.
e) I've been very disappointed that users of libraries don't run the 
test suite of the libraries they use. I don't think this is currently as 
easy as it should be. I would hope to see this change.
f) the whole exercise of getting all the libraries in the master branch 
to a syncronized "releasable" state is a huge amount of work which is of 
little value - at least to me.

In any case, you've all convinced me that my way of doing things isn't 
going to be attractive for most people so we don't have discuss in 
anymore.  There's no problem for me to just continue to sync up with the 
most recently release master from time to time when it is convenient for 
me to do so.

I would like to be able to browse library documentation directly on my 
own machine rather than going through boost.org as I do now.

Robert Ramey