On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Brad Hubbard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Piotr Dobrogost wrote: > > What about boost that is pretty much all headers with relatively little > in the library files. Why did they make that design decision do you propose? > > > I'm not sure I understand your question. If you are asking why most of boost > is delivered as source code only then the answer is - they don't have a > choice. Boost libraries are written in such a way as to be able to operate on > user defined types. That's the real power of templates. They can't compile > their libraries because it can be done only if the library knows user's > types. So only user of the library can compile it _together_ with his code. > > In case of curlpp situation is different. Curlpp doesn't operate on user > defined types and uses templates only "internally". As such it can be > compiled into library object file. > > > Well, that's why I don't completely agree with you. If you take a look at the website, my original intentions was to allow user-defined types. I'm at the office right now and I don't have much time, so I'll send a more elaborate message later. However, I agree that if you want to add explicit template instantiation and it wouldn't disturb the current behavior, then I don't have any problems to add them. But again, I'll send a more elaborate message later since I disagree with your arguments for doing so (but not necessary the idea). > > Ahh, yes, of course. > > Thank you Piotr. > > _______________________________________________ > cURLpp mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.rrette.com/mailman/listinfo/curlpp > >
_______________________________________________ cURLpp mailing list [email protected] http://www.rrette.com/mailman/listinfo/curlpp
