Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] proposal and poll
From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-30 02:20:18
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Julian Gonggrijp wrote:
> Glen Fernandes wrote:
>> It would be nice if both approaches (static configuration, automatic
>> identification) take into account - or allow you to specify -
>> conditional dependencies (e.g. dependencies based on identification of
>> supported or unsupported features determined by Boost.Config).
> In my reply to Robert Ramey just now I mentioned the possibility to
> use Boost.Bjam's <toolset> to handle this. There might be other ways
> as well. Given that it is probably feasible to account for this,
> would you vote in favour of what I propose?
If the result is tooling that can address the following:
- Developer can conveniently express "I care about Boost libraries L1,
L2, L3 for compilers C1, C2, C3" and the tooling replies with: "Get
L1, L2, L3, L9, L18, L27".
- If the developer instead expresses "I care about Boost libraries L1,
L2, L3 but only for compiler C1" and the tooling replies with: "Get
L1, L2, L3, L9".
Then sure: I think that would be useful to have. (Whether it is
implemented by adopting either of the two approaches).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk