Re: [boost] [type_traits] Modularization proposal

Subject: Re: [boost] [type_traits] Modularization proposal
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-09-17 05:26:12

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Peter Dimov <lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Andrey Semashev wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday 16 September 2014 20:06:27 John Maddock wrote:
>> > What happens to boost/type_traits.hpp in this scheme (which depends on >
>> > *all* of type_traits)?
>>
>> Hmm, I didn't notice that header. Ok, assuming we don't want to move this
>> one header to its own sublib, what if we approach it from the other side. We
>> can move all type traits except common_type.hpp and type_traits.hpp to a
>> sublib base (i.e. type_traits/base). floating_point_promotion.hpp would be
>> changed to not depend on MPL before moving to base.
>
>
> How about we just remove the common_type include from type_traits.hpp?

That would be a breaking change, wouldn't it? And it doesn't scale if
we want to modularize further for some reason.

I think we should establish practice of dealing with "include all"
headers since it's not the only one example.