Subject: Re: [boost] namespace boost?
From: Patrick Horgan (phorgan1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-15 17:44:53
On 01/15/2011 02:11 PM, Robert Ramey wrote:
> vicente.botet wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Denis Shevchenko"<for.dshevchenko_at_[hidden]>
>> To:<boost_at_[hidden]>
>> Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 9:56 PM
>> Subject: Re: [boost] namespace boost?
>>
>>
>>> 16.01.2011 00:49, vicente.botet ?????:
>>>> I find useful to have the file that include all the other files at
>>>> the boost directory level. As it is the case for Boost.Flyweight
>>>>
>>>> #include<boost/flyweight.hpp>
>>> Hmm... But what if I want to update one header-only library? If I
>>> have 'common' file that include all the other files at the boost
>>> directory level, I must replace this file AND own directory. But if
>>> all files placed in own directory, I replacing only it.
>> You are right, and I forget often to replace this file, but usualy it
>> doesn't changes to much. The ideal will be that this file include a
>> all.hpp file included on the library directory. Other have proposed
>> someting like
>>
>> #include<boost/flyweight/all.hpp>
> or #include<boost/flyweight/include.hpp> for the convenience header.
>
> actually, I might be ok with each library permitting ONE
>
> #include<boost/flyweight.hpp> // convenience header.
>
> I though I would prefer the former.
>
> My normal practice is not to use these anyway but rather pick out
> the specific one's I'm interested in. So it's not a huge issue for me.
> The reason I do this is that I like knowing that I'm including only
> the minimum required to get the job done.
Your compiler loves you for this, less work to do. I do the same,
because it is less work for the compiler, because I worry about side
effects from things I don't need, because I don't know without close
examination if any extra memory will be used by including something I
don't need, and because by including the minimum I need I can convince
myself that I have a deeper understanding.
All of this implies that I prefer people to break things into different
headers more intelligently, i.e. if something is used in multiple places
it should have a separate header so I don't get extra stuff I don't need
by including something I do need. That's one of my pet peeves.
Of course I have no objection to the existence of a parent include file
that includes everything for people that don't want to think about it
and to treat a particular part of a project as a black box. I do that
sometimes too. There's not enough time in the world to become an expert
on everything, (gad that's so frustrating, isn't it?!).
Patrick