Beman Dawes wrote:
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 2:05 AM, vicente.botet <vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
Hi,
Beman you have maybe missed the conditional compilation
#if 1 #define BOOST_SYSTEM_SOURCE #include <boost/system/detail/inlined/error_code.hpp> #else // old code #endif
I used this artifice to make easier possible evolutions of these file on trunk. So at the end the else part will be removed and there will be no duplicated code.
Ah! Sorry, I missed that.
Is there a reason for having the "inlined" subdirectory within boost/system/detail? Couldn't the two files just live in boost/system/detail?
No problem. I will change it.
Could namespace boost::system::system_detail be renamed boost::system::detail? Just to keep the names a bit shorter.
I will move it to boost::system::detail, but in some cases the use of system::detail:: will be needed to avoid ambiguity.
If you would prepare a patch against the current trunk, and send it to me, I'll apply it locally, and do some testing.
Also, we need to document BOOST_USE_WINDOWS_H, if I understand Anthony correctly. Let's not forget that.
I will try to write something and sent it to you.
The test framework also needs more work. Testing only the inlined version doesn't give enough confidence the library version works OK.
I've adapted the Boost.Chrono Jamfile to tests all the configurations
...
I can add a similar kind of rule on Boost.System test so all the configurations are tested.
Yes, that's a necessity.
We have enough time to get Boost.System inlining done for 1.46 if we get going on it right away.
I will try to send it to you soon with all the requested modifications. It would be really nice to be in time :) Best, Vicente -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/system-chrono-header-only-libs-tp2992903p... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.