From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-10 01:25:05
----- Original Message -----
From: "joel de guzman" <djowel_at_[hidden]>
> I tend to agree with Andrei. I would certainly hope to see a *smaller*
> library without all the bells and whistles. Such a library can be the
> core subset that can be used by both mpl and loki, not to mention that
> countless other libraries will benefit from it. I for one would love
to use such
> a library if it was small enough to fit in my pockets. The size and
> of mpl makes it unsuitable to use in the context of another library.
> the time, we need just the basic stuff. Take for instance the named
> parameters. It would benefit a lot from such a small library yet it
> foolish if such a facility will force me to drag the whole mpl along
> This of course assumes that mpl is a monolithic whole, for which I may
> wrong. It can be that mpl is just an orthogonal collection of modules
> we may use just the small subset without fear of unwanted interaction
> with the rest of the library. So the question now is: how is mpl
> can we use a *tiny* subset of it without dragging in the whole
How separate do you want it to be? MPL is a collection of mostly
independent components. You only need to "drag" the ones you're using.
Of course there are a some low-level components which are used in common
by many others, but there is very little coupling.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk