On 7/29/2017 10:50 AM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
Edward Diener wrote:
On 7/29/2017 5:02 AM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
I've given it some thought and I like the BCM approach; BCM should be a > library in libs/bcm (if we retain the name).
Perhaps a tool in tools/bcm ?
One could argue for that, if we go by principle alone.
Pragmatically speaking, I prefer being able to submodule boostorg/foo and boostorg/bcm side by side and then have `include(../bcm/bcm_deploy)` in foo/CMakeLists.txt, instead of having to submodule foo as libs/foo and bcm as tools/bcm and then have `include(../../tools/bcm/bcm_deploy)` in foo/CMakeLists.txt.
Understood, but bcm is really a tool to work with Boost libraries rather than what is ordinarily thought off as a Boost library itself. What will end-users think if we mix tools and libs in the same hierarchy <g> ?