Subject: [boost] Modularization criteria (was Re: Boost Modularization: did we get it right?)
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-12 09:25:56
Le 08/05/12 13:44, Dave Abrahams a écrit :
> Hi All,
> 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.
I guess that the answers to these question could be found somewhere, but
as we are discussing about whether the split is right or not I would
like to have some questions answered explicitly.
Which have been the criteria to split the Boost libraries in modulus?
Could the dependencies between modulus contain cycles or should we avoid
Do we have a tool to get the dependencies direct or indirect from a modulo?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk