Re: [boost] [Modularization] A new approach to header modularization
________________________________________ De: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] En nombre de Beman Dawes [bdawes@acm.org] Enviado el: jueves, 28 de mayo de 2009 23:06 Para: boost@lists.boost.org Asunto: Re: [boost] [Modularization] A new approach to header modularization
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:53 AM, troy d. straszheim <troy@resophonic.com> wrote:
In no particular order:
- There is still the toplevel filesystem.hpp and friends to deal with.
The way to deal with that is to migrate those to within the library's header directory.
As boost grows, filling the boost/ with headers becomes less and less attractive.
I don't see why this is less attractive than having boost/ filled with folders.
Of course we have to leave the current headers there for compatibiltiy, but that location could be deprecated and eventually only <boost/filesystem/filesystem.hpp> supported.
*This* is less attractive to me; I think a Boost lib is entitled to have at least one top level header; many use it to include all or the the most usual components. Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
JOAQUIN M. LOPEZ MUÑOZ wrote:
________________________________________ De: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] En nombre de Beman Dawes [bdawes@acm.org] Enviado el: jueves, 28 de mayo de 2009 23:06 Para: boost@lists.boost.org Asunto: Re: [boost] [Modularization] A new approach to header modularization
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:53 AM, troy d. straszheim <troy@resophonic.com> wrote:
In no particular order:
- There is still the toplevel filesystem.hpp and friends to deal with.
The way to deal with that is to migrate those to within the library's header directory.
As boost grows, filling the boost/ with headers becomes less and less attractive.
I don't see why this is less attractive than having boost/ filled with folders.
Of course we have to leave the current headers there for compatibiltiy, but that location could be deprecated and eventually only <boost/filesystem/filesystem.hpp> supported.
*This* is less attractive to me; I think a Boost lib is entitled to have at least one top level header; many use it to include all or the the most usual components.
I agree: one directory per library, and one optional convenience header sounds like a good compromise to me. FWIW, Stefan -- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
JOAQUIN M. LOPEZ MUÑOZ wrote On Thursday, May 28, 2009 5:18 PM
________________________________________ De: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] En nombre de Beman Dawes [bdawes@acm.org] Enviado el: jueves, 28 de mayo de 2009 23:06 Para: boost@lists.boost.org Asunto: Re: [boost] [Modularization] A new approach to header modularization
As boost grows, filling the boost/ with headers becomes less and less attractive.
I don't see why this is less attractive than having boost/ filled with folders.
Because it doubles the number of entries per library: filesystem.hpp and filesystem.
Of course we have to leave the current headers there for compatibiltiy, but that location could be deprecated and eventually only <boost/filesystem/filesystem.hpp> supported.
*This* is less attractive to me; I think a Boost lib is entitled to have at least one top level header; many use it to include all or the the most usual components.
There's no entitlement involved. Leaving such files in the root directory dissociates them from the rest of the library which mitigates against modularization, which is a laudable goal. _____ Rob Stewart robert.stewart@sig.com Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer; Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart@sig.com> wrote:
JOAQUIN M. LOPEZ MUÑOZ wrote ...
Of course we have to leave the current headers there for compatibiltiy, but that location could be deprecated and eventually only <boost/filesystem/filesystem.hpp> supported.
*This* is less attractive to me; I think a Boost lib is entitled to have at least one top level header; many use it to include all or the the most usual components.
There's no entitlement involved. Leaving such files in the root directory dissociates them from the rest of the library which mitigates against modularization, which is a laudable goal.
I agree. Allowing headers in the top level just doesn't scale. That appears to be true regardless of the particular header modularization approach taken. --Beman
participants (4)
-
Beman Dawes -
JOAQUIN M. LOPEZ MUÑOZ -
Stefan Seefeld -
Stewart, Robert