Re: [Boost-Users] RE: Dependencies for tokenizer?

From: Chris Little (cslittle_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-29 17:20:11

on 1/29/02 4:36 PM, Jeff Garland at jeff_at_[hidden] wrote:

>> Evidently reviewers thought 20 was reasonable, and I assume that some major
>> problems are solved by the 47 headers that weren't by 20.  I just wondered
> 
> I was the person that raised the point in the review.  I wasn't asking
> for changes, b/c I didn't consider dependence on other boost libraries
> to be a big issue. On projects where I have used boost we didn't try
> to remove the libraries we weren't using, so this wasn't an issue.
> So that's the history, unfortunately this doesn't solve your problem...
> 
>> if there was a lighter weight way in boost to do my little tokenizing task.
>> Is there?
> 
> I'm sure there is.  It is a matter of getting the "25 lines of actual code"
> (my guess) in those 47 headers that tokenizer really needs into a small
> header.  I'm sure with a small effort you could do it.  Perhaps you could
> even find a way to improve the overall design in the process.
> 

Some percentage of these files will be support for config,hpp.  I can't
remember if tokenizer was added before or after the change away from single
file.

Tony, We use boost in the same way that Jeff does.  We add a particular
release to our version control and then typically do not upgrade boost
unless really necessary for the life the project.  As long as you keep boost
stable the additional files aren't too onerous.

Chris