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

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-09 09:52:06

Toon Knapen <toon.knapen_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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.

Roughly speaking, yes.  Although I would mark Boost.Python as optional
even though Boost.Graph and Boost.MultiArray have subparts that depend
on it for Python bindings.

> Therefore I think it just is important to have a clearly documented 
> library-dependency-graph. 

Yeah, that would indeed be great.  I'm not sure how to accomplish it,
though.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com