Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] Modularizing Boost (modularization)
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-18 13:44:56
Le 18/10/13 15:12, Stephen Kelly a écrit :
> On 10/18/2013 01:18 PM, Beman Dawes wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Stephen Kelly <steveire_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> Hi there,
>>> my plan for modularizing and modernizing Boost was roughly this:
>>> * Phase 0 - remove dead weight by bumping compiler feature requirements
>>> * Phase 1 - move some files around so that the modularized repos form a
>>> mostly directed graph
>>> * Phase 2 - Form some kind of 'boost core library' or 'boost feature
>>> normalization library' from the guts of existing libraries like
>>> type_traits, static_assert, config mpl and utilities.
>>> * Phase 3 - Try to port the mpl to variadic templates so that the
>>> dependency on Boost.PP is not needed when variadic templates are available.
Sorry, but I don't remember we have had consensus about modularizing
Boost on this ML. IIRC we had consensus on moving to Git, but I can be
wrong as I could miss this thread.
>> Phase 1 was discussed several years ago when modular boost was being
>> planned. The decision was to do some limited moving of files around as part
>> of the conversion process, but only when necessary. This was part of the
>> strategy of limiting modularization changes to simplify the conversion
>> and ensure library maintainer buy-in.
> Why would a library maintainer object?
> Is that a hypothetical, or a real problem?
Because he is the single maintainer of the library and any change to the
library as subject to errors.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk