Re: [boost] date_time -> serialization (Was: spirtit -> serialization)

Subject: Re: [boost] date_time -> serialization (Was: spirtit -> serialization)
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-06-15 13:21:10

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Andrey
Semashev
> Sent: 15 June 2014 16:42
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] date_time -> serialization (Was: spirtit ->
serialization)
> 
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Paul A. Bristow <pbristow_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
> >
> > If someone is using Serialisation then isn't there a very high
> > probability that they are also using DateTime?
> 
> I'd say there isn't. I'd say even if a user uses both Serialization and
DateTime this
> doesn't mean he uses Serialization support in DateTime.

Ah  - I had misunderstood  DateTime did not imply Serialization support in
DateTime.

However, does my general point is that many users are already pulling in a large
part of Boost, which may mean that your efforts may not be as useful in practice
as in theory?
 
> > Sub-sub-modules sound Very Evil to me.
> 
> Why?

More complicated file layout.

Will there be a sub-module GIT repo?  Already getting sub-modules updated is
troublesome.

Bound to have side-effects?

I've no idea how to avoid them, but they "Sound Evil" - if not "Smell Evil" ;-)

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal UK LA8 8AB
[phone]