Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
"Tobias Schwinger" <tschwinger@neoscientists.org> wrote
^^^ 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.
Understood.
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...
The benefits you pointed out weren't entirely unimportant ones. From my perspective #1 seems to be the best solution we have so far, because its drawbacks are the least lethal ones. Someone with another, possibly better idea out there?
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.
OK -- boost/<LIB>/typeof, then. Regards, Tobias