Re: [boost] [type_traits] Modularization proposal

Subject: Re: [boost] [type_traits] Modularization proposal
From: Rob Stewart (robertstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-09-17 05:12:16

On September 17, 2014 12:26:16 AM EDT, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 5:27 AM, Rob Stewart
><robertstewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On September 16, 2014 3:47:32 PM EDT, Andrey Semashev
><andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>> This seems almost ridiculous. If one can choose to not include the
>headers that incur the dependencies, then one can avoid them when
>desired. Those that don't care will just include boost/type_traits.hpp.
>
>The problem is that dependencies (for installation, not compilation)
>will unlikely be tracked on per-header basis, but rather on
>per-library basis.

The effect of what you propose is to change include directives, right? I'd prefer to avoid that. Forcing users to recall that all Type Traits headers are in the type_traits directory except a tiny subset is a cure worse than the disease.

Surely we can capture installation dependencies another way.

___
Rob

(Sent from my portable computation engine)