Subject: Re: [boost] A bike shed (any colour will do) on greener grass...
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-31 17:14:52
On 31 Oct 2013 at 20:30, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Are you referring to the 11 packages that would remain interconnected
> after all of my suggestions were implemented? Some of my suggestions
> were implemented, but not all.
Yes I was. I obviously misunderstood, I thought that was going to
happen eventually, or something close.
> I would agree with calling that small, but no further work on
> modularization is likely to be done. I'm not willing to do any such
> horizontal work after the move to git, so someone else would have to
> step up to do it.
I think it was unfortunate that the git transition has got mixed up
with modularisation. The two are quite different, but together they
create a lot more change (and breakage) than either alone would.
> > how many of them pull in a dependency only to
> > never use it or use it very lightly?
> I never counted, but 'at least some and maybe several'. Where I
> arbitrarily define some < several by an order of magnitude of 3 or so :).
> > How many pull in dependencies
> > which can now be replaced with C++11 standard libraries instead? That
> > sort of thing.
> Probably less than 'some' above. I realise that that's meaningless
> without some quantified baseline :).
Useful to know, and you know more here than most, even if it is just
the shape of what is unknown. I suspect a libclang AST grokker could
tell us the detailed truth here, but that's a lot of work to
I would say that removing libraries is an excellent way of
discovering trivial dependencies, and increasing modularisation
-- Currently unemployed and looking for work. Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk