Marcus Lindblom wrote:
Xerces is pretty large, it has a lot of classes, etc. However, it's completely void of templates, if that would matter.
The techinique appears very non-intrusive for users of a single version (except for forward declarations).
I'm sure one can come up with a recommeded scheme that would simplify things (i.e. for the author FooLib to define FOOLIB_BOOST_VERSION and use that). However, there are a few places in boost that export "global" variables, such as the placeholders (IIRC they go in the anonymous namespace).
It could add some additional testing burden. (Worst case: Test to include every boost file with every other boost file, both of every version supporting this scheme.)
But I'm sure there are others who are more familiar with this technique and it's potential pitfalls.
Cheers, /Marcus
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
I am open to any form of solution whether it be macro-based or bcp or Xerces style. I just find it sad that I am stopping 1.34 from entering our company on purpose because I do not think that adding to our existing 1.32 and 1.33.1 installations will help. Is there anyway we can get the core boost developers to look into this? Since I am the only boost-evangelist here, I can't imagine me stopping progress over something like this. HELP!! :)