Subject: Re: [boost] Thoughts on Boost v2
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-16 18:52:49
On 16 May 2014 at 13:49, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> > Thoughts?
> Why not let each library have their own choice of build tool,
> documentation format, etc. ? All dependencies need to be explicitly
> spelled out, not at the file level, but the package level, so building
> library X shouldn't need to be concerned at all about how its
> prerequisite library Y was produced (, documented, etc.).
I forgot to mention that it is also mandatory to package up your code
as C++ Modules (these are now viably working on clang, or at least
that's what Chandler told me last night). The dependency system is
between C++ Modules.
Regarding build tool, that's why I suggested cmake which to my
knowledge makes it easy to wrap up any other build tool in cmake.
Regarding documentation, well I find much of existing Boost
documentation poor, not helped by inconsistencies in presentation.
Besides, once you have it configured, the Boost.Geometry auto
extracting docs generator is pretty damn neat. The very time
consuming part is setting it up, and that's something which could be
centralised by the community.
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk