Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] proposal and poll
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-30 05:44:50
On Thursday 29 May 2014 22:22:05 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.
Agree, to a reasonable point. I don't think that solid libraries should be
torn apart or unrelated components of different libraries should be mixed
together just to reduce dependencies. The cases where this would be beneficial
should be discussed with library maintainers.
I think that notion of optional dependencies it also needed to achieve this
goal. There are multiple places in Boost where dependencies are intentionally
loosened but formally exist.
> 2. Simple but effective automation of dependency handling.
Taking into account your reply to Stefan, I agree that a tool for selectively
downloading a subset of Boost is needed.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk