On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Brad Hubbard <curlpp_at_brand-hubs.com> 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
> cURLpp_at_rrette.com
> http://www.rrette.com/mailman/listinfo/curlpp
>
>

_______________________________________________
cURLpp mailing list
cURLpp_at_rrette.com
http://www.rrette.com/mailman/listinfo/curlpp
Received on 2008-11-25