Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] Boost.Process done
From: Ilya Sokolov (ilyasokol_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-09-01 09:47:27
On 01.09.2010 2:41, Boris Schaeling wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:48:43 +0200, Ilya Sokolov <ilyasokol_at_[hidden]>
>> On 25.08.2010 23:36, Boris Schaeling wrote:
>>> In general Boost.Process depends on these header files from other Boost
>>> C++ libraries:
>> I don't think its use is justified.
> Quickly checked what is used where: find_executable_in_path() uses
> boost::algorithm::ends_with() and boost::algorithm::iends_with().
Both usages could be replaced with two or three lines, while
boost/algorithm/string/predicate.hpp depends on Boost.Range, which
depends on Boost.TypeTraits, Boost.MPL and so on.
> find_executable_in_path() throws boost::filesystem::filesystem_error()
> if a program isn't found in PATH.
IMO, it doesn't matter what find_executable_in_path() throws, it
could be any other class without any pain for users.
> boost::lexical_cast is used by named_pipe to convert the UUID (from
> Boost.Uuid) to a std::string.
boost/lexical_cast.hpp includes almost everything.
>> BOOST_STRINGIZE (from Boost.Config) could be used instead of
> Regarding the header files above: I wonder whether it makes sense to get
> rid of actual helpful functions like boost::algorithm::ends_with() only
> to remove a dependency on another Boost library. I understand the case
> about Boost.Filesystem which requires to be built. But it's a kind of
> strange goal for Boost libraries to reuse as little code as possible
> from other Boost libraries?
"Negative effects of coupling become obvious when one library uses a
second library which uses a third, and so on. The worst form of coupling
requires the user understand each of the coupled libraries. Coupling may
also reduce the portability of a library - even in case when all used
libraries are self-sufficient..."
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk