Re: [boost] [modularization] Improving/splitting up detail

Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] Improving/splitting up detail
From: Cox, Michael (mhcox_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-11-02 23:02:29

On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 6:20 AM, <boost-request_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 08:20:02 -0400
> From: Rob Stewart <robertstewart_at_[hidden]>
> To: "boost_at_[hidden]" <boost_at_[hidden]>
> Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] Improving/splitting up detail
> Message-ID: <57B4CEB2-A04B-4341-A613-39FB1A9D6AE3_at_[hidden]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Nov 2, 2013, at 4:35 AM, "John Maddock" <john_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>>>> The goal is to create two 'modules' or libraries:
>>>
>>> We had that originally. They were called "detail" and "core".
> [snip]
>>>
>>> I prefer to have no such "detail" libraries at all. Everything that is
useful to a broader audience should be in utility.
>>
>> Funnily enough I was about to suggest just that: lets do away with
detail and have:
>>
>> core:
>> everything in:
>> boost/detail/
>> boost/pending/
>> boost/utility/
>> That has no dependencies.

What about config, or should that also go in core?

>>
>> Utility:
>> As above, but with dependencies (mostly to mpl/pp/type_traits).
>>
>> throw_exception.hpp and dependencies should go in core too, as would a
few headers under boost/ such as cstdint.hpp etc.
>
> That seems like a good idea provided that everything now in namespace
detail remains in that namespace.
>
>
> ___
> Rob
>
> (Sent from my portable computation engine)
>