From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-06 06:18:41
David Abrahams wrote:
> brangdon_at_[hidden] (Dave Harris) writes:
>>> For example, if Bind is unneeded the user can discard it
>>>is much more to the point.
>>But "is unneeded" again fails to say who doesn't need it, and hence fails
>>to say why it isn't needed.
> I don't see how saying who doesn't need it would indicate anything
> about why it isn't needed.
> Very slightly, but then the original statement is vague. What kind of
> "discarding" are we talking about, anyway? If the user doesn't need
> Bind he... doesn't have to use it. What is there to discard?
The Bind module? The context is about modular vs. monolithic
architectures. I wanted to emphasize orthogonality and clean
lines that separate each module. For reference, here's the
context in whole: http://tinyurl.com/c7kdl. Why is that important?
you can strip it to the core and it will still be useful. I am
a big fan of that ability. For instance, there's a package of
Spirit that uses only a minimal subset of Boost (we call miniboost).
When stripped to the core, Spirit should still be usable, with
lesser dependencies on underlying libraries. Modular libraries
are a joy to use in that regard. An original objective was to
make the core Spirit dependencies as small as say, Tokenizer.
This is only possible if the underlying libraries be as modular
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk