AMDG On 1/18/2011 9:50 AM, Stewart, Robert wrote:
Dave Abrahams wrote:
This is true, but I don't want to encourage a proliferation of files with the same name (in different directories). That will just make development harder. I can't help but think that those against boost/library_name.hpp are focusing so hard on purity that they're ignoring convenience. It should be _trivial_ for people to get started with a boost library, and #include<boost/library_name/library_name.hpp> makes a bad first impression, IMO.
For the person just starting with a Boost library, boost/library_name.hpp is the way to go (I wasn't suggesting not having that file). If that includes boost/library_name/all.hpp, then once boost/library_name.hpp exists, it will never change so library_name's developer need never worry about it again.
I wasn't commenting on the wisdom of boost/configurator/configurator.hpp, though I agree that the redundancy is unfortunate. However, if there's no other include file in boost/configurator, what name should it have?
How about we just say that a library should reserve a single name under boost and how it uses it is up to the library author (i.e. a single header, a directory, or a directory + header are all fine.). If we're just trying to keep the top-level boost from getting cluttered, there's no reason to overspecify the solution. In Christ, Steven Watanabe