On 2/24/2012 7:49 AM, Mathias Gaunard wrote:
On 02/24/2012 03:33 AM, Edward Diener wrote:
The current Boost.Config has one header per compiler so obviously it does make sense. Another header attempts to figure out the compiler being used and then the particular compiler's header is included. What is so arcane about that ?
Those are not "real" headers. You're not allowed to ever include one of those directly.
Including any of those directly would open a whole can of worms. They don't even have include guards or anything of the sort.
It could be argued that the extension should be changed from .hpp to .inl.
Or rather, .ipp, as that's what other Boost libraries use for internal headers. Or inside a detail directory. I should also point out that the same also really applies to my library. The non-top level headers could be rearranged as implementation details. And I mentioned before, could be moved so that concatenated headers are used. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail