Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] proposal and poll
From: Julian Gonggrijp (j.gonggrijp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-06-01 08:18:58
Peter Dimov wrote:
> John Maddock wrote:
>> We also need sensible policies for dealing with optional components - a good example would be libraries that provide serialization support in a separate optional header. The library as such does not require Boost.Serialization, but quite rightly the optional "bridging" support is there. I asked about this last time this topic came up, but I saw no good answer?
> I'm not sure whether this is actually a significant problem in practice. An automated dependency tracker will be confused, but that would simply be a matter of marking up the bridge header as "do-not-track" in some way, wouldn't it?
I agree it probably won't be a big problem.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk