Re: [boost] Road to low-quality-code is paved with good intentions of dropping dependencies

Subject: Re: [boost] Road to low-quality-code is paved with good intentions of dropping dependencies
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-01-07 07:22:56

Note, not disagreeing, or agreeing, with you. But..

On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:49 AM, Antony Polukhin <antoshkka_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> So may be we should think of those libraries as of "base" libraries! I do
> not mean that they must be moved in a single "base" folder. I'm talking
> only about dependency reports: those libraries must be treated by the
> dependency tool as a single one and must have the level 1.
>

You do realize that the report is only showing the node distances of the
code dependency graph? No one ordained anything in that report as being any
particular level. And what you are suggesting would not result in a
dependency report?

Those libraries are "base", because they are the very common part of Boost
> framework. Not using them is more like a bad decision, reimplementing parts
> of them is an afwull decision. Threating them as base/common/core/main part
> of Boost seems reasonable.
>

Treating them as base, or whatever, is irrelevant to the what is in the
report.

-- 
-- Rene Rivera
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net
-- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail