Stewart, Robert wrote:
vicente.botet wrote:
I think the main problem with standardizing boost/<lib>/all.hpp is could clash with a feature named all for a particular domain.
Aside from my not envisioning anything named "all" being useful, your argument is reasonable.
If "all" is considered too inclusive, as Eric suggests, then another name is possible. How about "_"? Is "_.hpp" legal in all supported filesystems? Since we're talking about libraries, and not applications, how about "main.hpp?" "main" is still very short and would be consistent.
To be honest, I find the lib/main.hpp idea not bad at all (except for the extra typing involved vs. lib.hpp). However, following existing practice, and not breaking existing code, IMO, far outweigh the problem you have with tab completion: that can never be a valid rationale for breaking existing code. Fusion simply follows existing practice and extends it to the next level of modularity. There were two existing practice at the time when I wrote fusion: lib/ lib.hpp and lib/ lib/lib.hpp I find the latter redundant. I chose to follow the first. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://spirit.sf.net http://www.facebook.com/djowel Meet me at BoostCon http://www.boostcon.com/home http://www.facebook.com/boostcon