Re: [boost] [modularization] Modularizing Boost (modularization)

Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] Modularizing Boost (modularization)
From: Stephen Kelly (steveire_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-18 08:16:45

On 10/18/2013 02:01 PM, Julian Gonggrijp wrote:
> Stephen Kelly wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> * Phase 1 - move some files around so that the modularized repos form a
>> mostly directed graph
>> [...]
> I apologise for this mostly tangential remark, but it appears that 
> you specifically mean a mostly *acyclic* (directed) graph.

Yes, that is what I meant. Thanks for clarifying.

>  I would 
> expect that a dependency graph is always directed (even if some 
> dependencies are mutual) and that the aim of your project is to 
> remove cycles, so that using one node doesn't always imply that you 
> need all other nodes as well. 

Yes.

> However, this conflicts with my 
> intuition every time I read that you want to make the graph (more) 
> "directed".
>
> To summarise, you would help me to feel more sure that I understand 
> what you are doing if you could confirm that by "directed" you 
> actually mean "acyclic". Or, if that is not the case, I think I need 
> a bit more explanation!

I can confirm that your wording is better. My aim has been to make the
dependency graph more acylcic.

> Please know that I totally agree with the aim to reduce dependencies 
> between Boost libs. Regard this post as a nitpick by an idiot who 
> works too often with graphs, if you want. :-)

Not at all! I aim for exactness where it matters. I got it wrong in this
case, where it indeed matters.

Thanks,

Steve.