Re: [boost] Removing old config macro and increasing compiler requirements.

Subject: Re: [boost] Removing old config macro and increasing compiler requirements.
From: Stephen Kelly (steveire_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-08-05 11:00:33

On 08/05/2013 04:32 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> on Sun Aug 04 2013, Stephen Kelly <steveire-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 08/04/2013 01:31 PM, Daniel James wrote:
>>> On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, at 01:21 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>> I don't think it matters. static_assert is a tiny dependency.
>> You miss the point entirely, repeatedly and insistently :).
> Stephen, I don't think you're being quite fair here.  I am trying hard
> to see your point, and if there's something Daniel has missed, well, I
> guess I am probably missing it too.  Could you patiently try again to
> spell out your point in the simplest and clearest terms possible?

Roughly backwards through what I've quoted above:

Forget that static_assert is a small dependency.

My point was that increasing the compiler requirement makes one library
not depend on the other in at least two cases (config->core and
any->static_assert, and to some extent, but not a full extent,
any->type_traits).

The core->config issue is not a special case, because the exact same
case exists for any->static_assert.

To be clear, the 'case' is that 'when we bump compiler requirements, we
can remove library dependencies'.

The compiler requirement bump I posted patches for has benefits and very
small impact, so should be a no-brainer and independently justifiable.

I haven't investigated other benefits of doing the bump, but just
running 'git grep -w 1300' in boost-trunk shows me that there will be
more code and workarounds to remove. How that can possibly be a can of
worms I still don't know...

I can just wait and see if someone commits my patches after whatever
process or user surveys you want to do, then I can investigate more.

Thanks,

Steve.