Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
John, if you are going to refactor, probably you can follow the proposals that circulated on the list, of supporting both approaches. Basically, you can give an header that has only declarations, one with (inline) definitions (inline can be controlled with preprocessor macro), and a source file that will include the definitions with disabled inlines.
In this way, everyone can choose whether to include the inline definitions, or compile in its project the source file with out-of-line versions of the functions.
I think that when one has the option of compiling the library using his preferred build system, this need for header only library will just disappear, and other considerations as compile times will weight more.
I'm un-dropping off the grid to mention that the Boost mandatory source files should be able to be directly incorporated into a user's build system. It's been possible in the past. Maybe we should suggest to Monotone to try that first.
I like very much the boost build system, but I have to admit that to understand how it worked and to appreciate its power took a lot of time. Maybe relieving just this entry barrier (easing the porting to the user-chosen build system) will be enough for improve boost acceptance.
I've mentioned thoughts like this before, but since our primary purpose is creating C++ libraries, I don't want our secondary projects (like Boost.Build) to create a NIH barrier for our users. I've finally posted an official bug about this (#1093) at <http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/1093>.
On 7/14/07, John Maddock <john@johnmaddock.co.uk> wrote:
Anthony Williams wrote:
There has recently been some discussion on the monotone development list about phasing out their use of boost libraries that require building external lib files (filesystem and regex). I thought people might find it interesting, so I'm posting some of the comments here: Anthony: can you pass on to these folks that I'm willing to work with them to refactor regex as a header only library if that's the only showstopper?
I have some reservations about such a refactoring (mostly compile times get a lot longer, I suspect), but I guess it's ultimately a "suck it and see" issue.
-- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT hotmail DOT com