Robert Ramey wrote:
among many others. My proposal is only an idea and I'm not prepared to mount a serious defense of it. But it seems that something along these lines is going to be necessary.'
Yes, something along these lines. I'm just wondering if you are reinventing tank treads when we already have a perfectly good wheel.
I hope so, but I'm not seeing it. The ....so.m.n.o scheme is fine as far as it goes - but It doesn't say anything about how it is to be enforced at compile/link/runtime.
It's enforced, on Unix, by linking against the properly-named .so, and then, at runtime, the linker will naturally complain unless you have a library of compatible version around. At present, each version of Boost is incompatible with every other version of itself, and the .so names represent this very well. I don't have experience with doing similar on Windows, but I'm pretty sure that the manifests can be employed for the same effect -- and that's the right way. - Volodya