Subject: Re: [boost] Removing old config macro and increasing compiler requirements.
From: Stephen Kelly (steveire_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-08-04 07:00:34
On 08/04/2013 12:57 PM, Daniel James wrote:
>> That obviously does not help with forward momentum
>> in efforts like this, and I expect the boost community has a solution to
>> that problem.
> Do you have any evidence for that? No one opposed your original change.
I don't have specific information on what minimum compiler version would
enable which interdependency culling, no. I only have the hard
information that increasing the requirement allows cutting the
config->core dependency, and the any->static_assert dependency.
It is not unreasonable to think that the pattern ends there, so I don't
think further evidence is necessary. I think what is necessary is for
the boost community to pick increased compiler requirements for the
purpose of proceeding with modularization, and I recommend increasing
the requirement significantly in order to make most significant cuts in
> I didn't because the benefit outweighed the potential loss (which is
> very small, possibly none at all). But "increasing the compiler
> requirement much more" sounds excessive.
>> Is the solution the steering committee? I ask because I'm not familiar
>> enough with the boost community to know already.
> It's not really very clear what the situation is, at least to me. But
> I'd say that such things really should be discussed on this list first
> as it's a development matter.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk