Joel de Guzman wrote:
Robert Ramey wrote:
What's wrong with having one of the interested parties host it? What's wrong with having it in, say, boost/serialization/support and have it included by the other library using it? Sure, that is not ideal, but that practice ultimately avoids having boost detail crowded.
I never found anything wrong with it. I think what happend was that the author of another library - program options - felt at the time that depending on something which was sort of an implementation detail in another library (that was new at the time) was a risky idea. So he made a local copy. I think this was very reasonable in this situation. But objections were raised about having duplicated code so that's how we got here. I don't think you cat get around the fact that either something is shared and public, or its private - it can't be both. if its the former it has to have the things that shared/public things have, documentation, rationale, stable interface etc. Robert Ramey
Regards,