From: Arkadiy Vertleyb (vertleyb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-19 15:37:48
"Tobias Schwinger" <tschwinger_at_[hidden]> wrote
> > - it introduces unnecessary dependencies -- when a type is
added/changed
> > this is reflected in the header that is used by the clients having
nothing
> > to do with this type.
>
> ^^^ Sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Would you elaborate, please?
If I have all the types registered in the same header, and
if I add a new type, then
this registration header needs to be modified to register the new type.
At this point I have to rebuild all the sources that use typeof on _any_
type.
> Well, I guess we're going to go for #1 then.
Well, I just pointed out a few benefits of #1, but I am by no means sure
that it's perfect, and even the best of three...
> Where should the header go?
>
> boost/typeof/boost/<LIB>
>
> ??
No, definitely not under boost/typeof :-)
I think the registration should be [conceptualy] owned by the library
authors rather then typeof library, so I still think boost/<LIB>/typeof is
more appropriate. When I was talking about non-intrusiveness I meant files,
not directories. It is also much easier to work with CVS when everything is
under the same root.
Regards,
Arkadiy