Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] Improving/splitting up detail
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-11-02 05:47:32
On Saturday 02 November 2013 08:23:05 Daniel Pfeifer wrote:
> How do we describe those libraries to users? Those might be the
> Frequently Questioned Answers:
> A: It is a Boost library that you should not use.
> Q: If it is not useful, why does it exist?
> A: It is used internally by several Boost libraries.
> Q: If it is so useful, why should I not use it too?
A: Because they are Boost implementation details. They are undocumented and
can be changed or removed without notice and backward compatibility.
That said I agree that the detail module looks awkward.
> I prefer to have no such "detail" libraries at all. Everything that is
> useful to a broader audience should be in utility.
> Everything else should be an implementation detail of one library.
There are things not intended for public use and yet useful for multiple
libraries. I don't think these components should be made a public part of
utility, but making them a private part of it seems ok to me.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk