Re: [boost] Library dependencies and intrer-library code reuse

Subject: Re: [boost] Library dependencies and intrer-library code reuse
From: Tom Brinkman (reportbase2007_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-26 04:42:12

Unbelievably Awesome.

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 1:11 AM, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> At Thu, 25 Mar 2010 22:58:45 -0500,
> Zachary Turner wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj_at_[hidden]>wrote:
>>
>> > AMDG
>> >
>> >
>> > Zachary Turner wrote:
>> >
>> >> So there we go.  Does this work, and if not why not?   Even if we agree
>> >> it's
>> >> a huge undertaking, is it worth it?  And if not, why not?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Even if it were a good idea, it isn't going to happen.
>> > Nothing that requires that much effort is ever going
>> > to happen around here.  If we did have that kind of
>> > manpower, I think there are many higher priorities.
>> >
>> >
>> Surely we can't adopt that stance forever can we?  It's not difficult to
>> imagine a scenario down the line where Boost has hundreds of independent
>> libraries.  This won't scale.  It *cant* scale.  But at the same time, it
>> really doesn't make sense for everyone to continue reinventing wheels in
>> every single new library that gets added to boost.  It defeats the whole
>> purpose of having a generic library in the first place, and makes the exact
>> problem that everyone complains about (slow compile times) even
>> worse!
>
> Untangling (and minimizing) intra-library dependencies is certainly
> doable—the untangling part has already been done
> (http://gitorious.org/boost)—but you proposed something more radical…
> and probably impossible when you consider the pimpl/header-only
> requirement.  A pimpl-based type traits library?
>
> --
> Dave Abrahams           Meet me at BoostCon: http://www.boostcon.com
> BoostPro Computing
> http://www.boostpro.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost