On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Thomas Heller via Boost
Absolutely not. I'd prefer to link against compiled libraries. If only to reduce compile times.
Nothing wrong with the OPTION to link against Boost.System, but
header-only should be the default. Its easier for users and gives a
better experience.
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Peter Dimov via Boost
...ASIO header only users almost certainly will also want header only Boost.System.
I don't think so (although now that it has been fixed to use Winapi instead of
, maybe). But even if true, users of static library A that uses Asio will not necessarily want a header-only Boost.System, which means that static library A has to have a way to link to Asio "statically".
For reference, here is the ONE .cpp file which makes Boost.System not header-only: https://github.com/boostorg/system/blob/develop/src/error_code.cpp#L14 and here's that one header it includes https://github.com/boostorg/system/blob/develop/include/boost/system/detail/... We make people link against Boost.System just for that? Especially when std::error_code is a built in for C++11 and later? It seems overkill. Boost.System should be header-only by default. Then, Asio users will never need a link dependency.