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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk