On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:55:56 -0000, "Gustavo Guerra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Gennaro Prota wrote: >> Well, the title says it all :-) I would like to have a separate source >> file for the ubiquitous BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT. I have several files >> that use BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT but no real config macro. For those >> ones, I currently have something like >> >> #include "boost/config.hpp" // for BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT >> >> Wouldn't >> >> #include "boost/config/static_constant.hpp" >> >> be preferable? >> > >On the same spirit, I would like to request that boost::non_copyable be also >moved to a separate header "boost/non_copyable.hpp" or >"boost/utility/non_copyable", so we don't have to include the whole >"boost/utility.hpp" Well, I don't know if it's on the same spirit :-) The intent of a separate static_constant.hpp was not to include "less code" (that's not the case since static_constant.hpp would, in turn, include config.hpp, to see whether the compiler supports in class initialization. Also, for backward compatibility, suffix.hpp would include static_constant.hpp). Analogously, I agree with your request about non_copyable, but not to economize on the amount of code included; it's instead for a logical reason: having all the 'utilities' in a header (or even in a folder) named "utilities" has the same logic than, say, having all the templates of your application in a header named templates.hpp or all your constants in constant.hpp (I would add: or all standard algorithms in a header named algorithm ;-)). Do we find it a logical logic? :-) Genny. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost