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
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
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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk