Subject: Re: [boost] Library dependencies and intrer-library code reuse
From: Tom Brinkman (reportbase2007_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-26 04:42:12
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
> Untangling (and minimizing) intra-library dependencies is certainly
> doablethe 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
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk