On 01/15/2011 02:11 PM, Robert Ramey wrote:
vicente.botet wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Denis Shevchenko"<for.dshevchenko@gmail.com> To:<boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 9:56 PM Subject: Re: [boost] namespace boost?
I find useful to have the file that include all the other files at the boost directory level. As it is the case for Boost.Flyweight
#include<boost/flyweight.hpp> Hmm... But what if I want to update one header-only library? If I have 'common' file that include all the other files at the boost
16.01.2011 00:49, vicente.botet ?????: directory level, I must replace this file AND own directory. But if all files placed in own directory, I replacing only it. 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 though I would prefer the former.
My normal practice is not to use these anyway but rather pick out the specific one's I'm interested in. So it's not a huge issue for me. The reason I do this is that I like knowing that I'm including only the minimum required to get the job done. Your compiler loves you for this, less work to do. I do the same, because it is less work for the compiler, because I worry about side effects from things I don't need, because I don't know without close examination if any extra memory will be used by including something I don't need, and because by including the minimum I need I can convince myself that I have a deeper understanding.
All of this implies that I prefer people to break things into different headers more intelligently, i.e. if something is used in multiple places it should have a separate header so I don't get extra stuff I don't need by including something I do need. That's one of my pet peeves. Of course I have no objection to the existence of a parent include file that includes everything for people that don't want to think about it and to treat a particular part of a project as a black box. I do that sometimes too. There's not enough time in the world to become an expert on everything, (gad that's so frustrating, isn't it?!). Patrick