Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Modularization: did we get it right?
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-10 19:29:59
On 05/08/2012 10:10 AM, Daniel James wrote:
> On 8 May 2012 12:44, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> As we head toward a modularized Boost, Daniel Pfeifer we on the Ryppl
>> project would like confirmation that we've correctly (or at least
>> sensibly, when there's no obvious "correct") identified the module
>> boundaries in Boost's monolithic SVN repository. If library authors
>> could take a few moments to examine the contents of your library's repo
>> at https://github.com/boost-lib, and let us know, we'd be most grateful.
> My bits looks fine, but if possible I'd like functional/hash to be a
> separate module from functional (I think that's just everything from
> the hash subdirectory, with the headers from
> include/boost/functional/hash*). I guess it's tricky with the way
> submodules are currently used.
The same would go for numeric.
numeric/ublas, numeric/conversion, and
numeric/interval are three independent
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk