4 ms·

There are multiple comments remarking on the header-only implementation, confused regarding linker errors and why this is desirable. Look into stb lib, which in

• legobmw99 1y ago
  In particular, you can define the implementation flag and include the header in a .c file with no other contents to recover the more “traditional” build set up where you have a separate TU dedicated to the library. I quite like the flexibility it provides in terms of making “unity builds” very easy, and scaling down quite well to small, single-TU projects with minimal build set ups.
  • FerkiHN 1y ago
    Exactly! That flexibility was one of my goals. Making integration smooth for both small embedded projects and larger codebases with unity builds — glad to hear it resonates.
    • legobmw99 1y ago
      I first encountered the idea relatively recently with Clay [1] and I have been a fan since. Once you get past the “huh, weird” stage it has a lot of benefits! 1: https://github.com/nicbarker/clay https://github.com/nicbarker/clay
• FerkiHN 1y ago
  Thanks! Yes, stb-style header-only libs were definitely an inspiration. I know some devs find the approach confusing, especially with linker errors if *_IMPLEMENTATION isn't handled correctly. I tried to keep it simple and clearly documented, but feedback like this helps improve it.