23 Mar
2007
23 Mar
'07
11:42 a.m.
Peter Dimov wrote:
Case A, call_once implemented in the header. You ship an improved call_once.hpp. User program needs recompilation to take advantage of the improvement.
Case B, call_once a thin wrapper over a C API, as in N2178. You ship an improved .lib/.dll. User program doesn't need recompilation (lib) or relink (dll).
Has anyone ever encountered a scenario where a new version of a library is published, and applications using it consider re-compiling a major (or even minor) drawback? And if so, why does Boost push so hard for a header-only implementation of its libraries? Isn't it a contradiction?