23 Oct
2009
23 Oct
'09
4:56 p.m.
Scott McMurray wrote:
2009/10/23 Frank Mori Hess <frank.hess@nist.gov>:
How do these objections to boost/D/all.hpp not also apply when it is called boost/D.hpp?
Presumably the argument is that if "all" doesn't include every single header in the library, then it's misleading, whereas D.hpp can be the "author's cut" of functionality.
Yes. That's the case for proto.hpp. It includes everything except debug utilities and typeof registrations. If I were to add serialization or python support, that would also be left out. A proto/all.hpp would either be inefficient and largely useless or else misleading. I imagine the same is true for most libraries. -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com