Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] proposal and poll
From: Stefan Seefeld (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-29 19:20:19
On 2014-05-29 16:22, Julian Gonggrijp wrote:
> The following (evolutionary) global changes to Boost should be planned
> and given priority over any other proposals [e.g. 5], in the following
> 1. Reduction of dependencies between Boost libraries.
> 2. Simple but effective automation of dependency handling.
I very much applaud all efforts on 1., but I'm slightly against 2.
insofar as it reduces the motivation to work on 1.
(Read: If by 2. you mean the tracking of dependencies, I think this is
very useful in support of the overall goal. In contrast, if you mean
tools to clone files automatically, that would provide incentives to
continue carelessly adding unneeded dependencies, so I'd vote against it.)
Good luck !
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk