Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] Improving/splitting up detail
From: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-11-02 05:16:33
On 2 November 2013 06:18, Ahmed Charles <acharles_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 22:34:07 +0000
>> From: daniel_at_[hidden]
>> To: boost_at_[hidden]
>> Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] Improving/splitting up detail
>> On 1 November 2013 22:10, Daniel Pfeifer <daniel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> >> boost/detail/xxx.hpp
>> >> Used by YYY and ZZZ, move to "common"
>> > Isn't there already a dependency from YYY to ZZZ? Could we put xxx.hpp
>> > to ZZZ instead? Maybe a "common" is not even needed.
>> We should be careful about making changes just because they fit the
>> current dependencies. Dependencies are not constant, we don't want to
>> be in a situation where the dependency graph falls apart because of a
>> future change to one of these headers. Also, if a header is in detail
>> it should be potentially useful for future libraries which wouldn't
>> want to depend on ZZZ (if it isn't, then it shouldn't have been put in
>> detail in the first place).
> The goal is to create two 'modules' or libraries:
I understand that very well. I was responding to the idea that xxx.hpp
should be put into ZZZ. Which is why I quoted that part. That's how
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk