-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 23 October 2009, 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.
If you go back and reread the posts I was replying to (or the quote in my post), you'll see exactly what D.hpp was laid out to be: "File D.hpp is either standalone (if no directory D exists) or includes all files in subdirectory D." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkrh1nMACgkQ5vihyNWuA4Va8QCggfztmH4wn0MlVeGkF0aScVmx ua0An1Mqr/KNWbmaaR6dur5DWTWnT35s =iYNK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----