Re: On Boost and modules

From: René Ferdinand Rivera Morell (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-04-09 14:40:59

On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 9:33 AM Boris Kolpackov via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Andrey Semashev via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> > It doesn't make sense to have to build the whole Boost into a module
> > only to pull a small part from it. I would much rather include the
> > headers I want instead.
>
> I actually don't think having a single/only `boost` module would be
> the right way to modularize Boost. I would suggest having a module
> per library (at least; maybe even more granular, say for Spirit,
> which is actually three libraries in one).

Yes, definitely a module per library. I would avoid the sub-modules.
Probably not worth the pain and it would be more confusing to users.

> And a single `boost`
> module that re-exports them all. Users who want all of Boost, can
> import `boost`, those like you who want to carefully manage their
> dependencies can import more granular modules. And, at least in
> build2, we only build BMIs that are actually used (imported).

I would strongly discourage a singular `boost` module. There are too
many ways to subset boost that would cause confusion as to what
`import boost;` means.

> (This brings an interesting question: if I import `boost`, but only
> use a small subset of libraries, how do I know which ones I should
> be linking. Trial and error until there are no more unresolved symbols
> feels a bit stone age.)

Yeah, let's not corner our way into such issues.

-- 
-- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell
-- Don't Assume Anything  -- No Supone Nada
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net