"Tobias Schwinger" <tschwinger@neoscientists.org> wrote
- it introduces unnecessary dependencies -- when a type is added/changed this is reflected in the header that is used by the clients having nothing to do with this type.
^^^ Sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Would you elaborate, please?
If I have all the types registered in the same header, and if I add a new type, then this registration header needs to be modified to register the new type. At this point I have to rebuild all the sources that use typeof on _any_ type.
Well, I guess we're going to go for #1 then.
Well, I just pointed out a few benefits of #1, but I am by no means sure that it's perfect, and even the best of three...
Where should the header go?
boost/typeof/boost/<LIB>
??
No, definitely not under boost/typeof :-) I think the registration should be [conceptualy] owned by the library authors rather then typeof library, so I still think boost/<LIB>/typeof is more appropriate. When I was talking about non-intrusiveness I meant files, not directories. It is also much easier to work with CVS when everything is under the same root. Regards, Arkadiy