Robert Ramey wrote:
Yeah, I think that's possible. So I'm going to:
1. put new header to boost/detail 2. put new source to libs/detail/utf 3. #include new source in program_options.
Fine. I'll #include new source in serialization as well so we'll all be in the same page.
Question. Does this not mean that this if an application includes both the serialization package as well as the program options package that some linkers will fail to links with a duplicate symbol message?
My current plan is that each library which uses utf8 will do this: namespace boost { namespace whatever { #include "../../detail/utf8_codecvt.hpp"; }} so no conflicts will arise. Using anonymous namespace it a bit hard, since there's both header and source, and anonymous namesapce will be different in them.
I would also like to see
1. The documentation page and test moved to a neutral spot.
I'll try.
2. Could you examine my version and your version and reconcile any differences. Given Rene's observations, I made a pass and fixed the issues he mentioned. It's a could of changes but they are small and make things much more transparent and reliable. I've also tested them on a variety of compilers and feel much better about it.
Sure. Is new version in CVS? - Volodya