At Sat, 15 Jan 2011 14:30:46 -0800, Steven Watanabe wrote:
AMDG
On 1/15/2011 2:11 PM, Robert Ramey wrote:
vicente.botet wrote:
You are right, and I forget often to replace this file, but usualy it doesn't changes to much. The ideal will be that this file include a all.hpp file included on the library directory. Other have proposed someting like
#include<boost/flyweight/all.hpp> or #include<boost/flyweight/include.hpp> for the convenience header.
actually, I might be ok with each library permitting ONE
#include<boost/flyweight.hpp> // convenience header.
I favor this approach because it's already common practice. I don't consider any of the arguments against it that I've seen sufficient to justify going to something new.
Yeah, it's OK by me as well. If there's not going to be a collision with boost/flyweight/xxx.hpp, then boost/flyweight.hpp isn't going to collide either. And if it were to collide, we'd have bigger problems than just a poor choice of header paths :-) -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com