Subject: Re: [boost] Removing old config macro and increasing compiler requirements.
From: Stephen Kelly (steveire_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-08-04 07:21:09
On 08/04/2013 01:10 PM, Daniel James wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, at 01:00 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> 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 don't buy that. Config is a special case, since almost everything
> depends on it.
Are you ignoring what I wrote about any->static_assert dependency which
is no longer needed as a result of bumping the compiler requirement?
Anyway, I think I'm starting to repeat myself in this thread, so I think
that's enough on that topic for the moment.
I agree that there seems to be consensus on the patches that I already
posted. Getting those committed would be a step in the right direction,
and as I wrote, enable other cleanups such as the any->static_assert
dependency. If those patches can be committed I can look into removing
that dependency and investigate other consequences of the version
I do still want to see the compiler version bumped higher, but that's
something for you guys who are stakeholders in the boost community to
hash out, and something that can be done in parallel to my work if those
patches get committed.
So, if someone with the commit bit can commit those, let's progress in
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk