Re: [boost] [modularization] proposal and poll

Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] proposal and poll
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-30 08:23:27

John Maddock wrote:
> We also need sensible policies for dealing with optional components - a 
> good example would be libraries that provide serialization support in a 
> separate optional header.  The library as such does not require 
> Boost.Serialization, but quite rightly the optional "bridging" support is 
> there.  I asked about this last time this topic came up, but I saw no good 
> answer?

I'm not sure whether this is actually a significant problem in practice. An 
automated dependency tracker will be confused, but that would simply be a 
matter of marking up the bridge header as "do-not-track" in some way, 
wouldn't it?