Re: [boost] [filesystem][program_options][serialization][test] fromcomp.lang.c++.moderated

From: Toon Knapen (toon.knapen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-09 07:41:13

David Abrahams wrote:

> I agree with that; no question about it.  I think a few more degrees
> of classification than you've outlined could be useful:
> 
>   core vs. optional
> 
>     I hate "optional" but can't think of a better term right now.
>     This is the distinction between, e.g., type traits and
>     serialization
> 

It's hard to draw the line between 'core' and 'optional' IMO. I guess 
'core'-libraries would be libraries that are heavily used by other 
boost-libraries whereas 'optional' libraries are leafs in the 
library-dependency graph.

Therefore I think it just is important to have a clearly documented 
library-dependency-graph. This would allow people using one specific 
boost library to know what other boost-libraries they also need. This 
will also allow them to know if the library they want to use relies on 
'still experimental' boost-libraries etc. And finally library-authors 
should be cautious about adding another dependency in their library. 
This way people can evaluate in advance the 'stability' of the 
boost-library they are interested in.

toon