I understand the general objections to putting code in header files, but can we put dogma aside for a moment? Are we all actually looking at the proposed change? exceptions.cpp contains a handful of trivial function definitions, all of them empty or 1 line. Opposing this change on the basis of compile time or code bloat strikes me as ridiculous when the actual effect would be approximately zero. I see Emil's point about non-inline functions being occasionally useful for debugging, but it's entirely incidental to the purpose of the library. Anyway it's quite a stretch in this particular case. If an exception is being thrown you already know where the problem is showing up. Why not just use a debugger? Has anyone ever actually had occasion to abuse exceptions.cpp in this way? In the current situation, the lock/mutex headers are unnecessarily coupled to the Threads shared library. This is very inconvenient for users and other Boost libraries (hence lightweight_mutex). It can be the difference between having to compile/install Boost and integrate it into your build system or... not. And for what? A few empty function definitions? The only issue raised that I find at all convincing is Anthony's DLL boundary problem, but I'd be surprised if there isn't a solution to that. Barring any such technical hurdle, I think making exceptions.hpp header-only is a no-brainer. Patrick On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 12:32 PM, <k-oli@gmx.de> wrote:
Please, can we stop to move code from cpp-files into headers?! It unnecessarily increases code bloading - I get binaries of multiple MBs size.
Oliver _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost