Subject: Re: [boost] [review] status of Boost.Conversion?
From: Gordon Woodhull (gordon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-28 20:16:28
On Jun 28, 2012, at 7:20 AM, "Vicente J. Botet Escriba" <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I would prefer to avoid a dependency from Boost.Chrono to Boost.DateTime.
Understood. Boost.Conversion has/had a nice directory structure to put these things in.
But for the sake of argument, what is the difference between an optional header dependency between Chrono and DateTime, and an optional header dependency from Conversion to both libraries? Is your objection because Chrono is mostly standard?
A few reviewers said they'd rather see individual libraries implement their own conversions rather than putting them all in Conversion.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk