Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Evolution
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-08 18:53:06
At Fri, 8 Oct 2010 13:20:25 -0800,
Robert Ramey wrote:
> > But in general it's not unreviewed code. It was usually part of a
> > library that passed review, and then the code was factored out. So it
> > doesn't have the same standing as a Boost library, and it may not have
> > any user-level documentation, because... it's an implementation detail
> > of various Boost libraries.
> Hmmmm - if its reviewed and placed in a "global" namespace like
> boost::detail why not just include it in boost::utility then?
sure, if you'll agree to document and maintain it at a level suitable
for users, be my guest :-)
Also, theoretically, putting new components in boost::utility requires
some kind of additional review process. I think we need a separate
designation for the sorts of things that end up in boost::detail.
> if its used for just one library, then why not make it a part of
> that one library rather than putting it in a global namespace?
That's exactly what one does. The only reason most of us ever put
something in boost::detail is that it's needed by multiple libraries.
> > Don't worry, Ryppl isn't dead either; it's just been quiet for a while
> > ;-)
> I see this evolution as something necessary on it's own. Rypple
> may or maynot occur, but I think boost should evolve in this
> direction regardless. For now, I'm proposing these changes
> only for new libraries.
Well, we could do Boost modularization separately from ryppl. Eric's
been maintaining a modularized mirror of boost at
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk