Re: [boost] Boost Modularization: did we get it right?

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Modularization: did we get it right?
From: Daniel Pfeifer (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-13 20:32:16

2012/5/10 Steven Watanabe <watanabesj_at_[hidden]>:
> AMDG
>
> 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
> libraries.

Done. I named them numeric_conversion, numeric_interval, and ublas.

> In Christ,
> Steven Watanabe
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>