Re: Re: Slight Alteration to Boost Directory Structure

From: Paul Mensonides (yg-boost-users_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-08 12:33:50

"William E. Kempf" <wekempf_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:20030108172855.VIMZ4411.lakemtao01.cox.net_at_smtp.east.cox.net...

> > I believe that he is talking about the root Boost directory which is the
> > parent directory of the Boost headers.  If, for instance, I have a
directory
> > "include" that I want to put all my library headers in and have a single
> > environment variable to specify the header search paths.  This cannot be
> > done with Boost because the Boost headers are located at
> > "boost/boost/*.hpp", not "boost/*.hpp".  Furthermore, you can't even put
> > Boost in the same directory as other includes, because you might get a
> > conflict between "include/boost" and "include/boost/boost".  It doesn't
> > bother me personally, but I see the point that he is getting at.
>
> If that's the point (which doesn't seem to be, since he talks about "new
boost libraries" doing the right thing), I can't agree.  Moving Boost
headers out of a boost subdirectory and into the top-level include directory
(so <boost/shared_ptr.hpp> becomes <shared_ptr.hpp>) would only result in
name clashes with other headers.

That is not what he (or I) means.  He is suggesting that the path to
"shared_ptr.hpp" should be "$INCLUDE/boost/shared_ptr.hpp" rather than
"$INCLUDE/boost/boost/shared_ptr.hpp", which is the way it is now.
Everything would still be the same for including headers except that only a
single search path is necessary to setup with the compiler.

Paul Mensonides