Boost logo

Boost :

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
least common
> 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.
99% of
> 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
would be
> foolish if such a facility will force me to drag the whole mpl along
with it.
> 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, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at