Re: [boost] [type_traits] Rewrite and dependency free version

Subject: Re: [boost] [type_traits] Rewrite and dependency free version
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-02-03 15:40:25

Stephen Kelly-2 wrote
> Robert Ramey wrote:
> 
>> And my proposal for the "bridge" module  (maybe better called "forward"
>> module is just that - a proposal.  I would like time to think about that
>> some more - a hear what other's have to say as well.
> 
> * Educate yourself about C++17/Clang modules

I confess that I haven't seen this in any way related to C++17. I would
certainly be skeptical of anyone spending any time on something as
speculative
as a future C++ standard before it's finalized.

> * If modular releases are a goal, as you claim, decide which tarballs
> should 
> be created for releases. One repo one tarball or something different?

An interesting question. I haven't really thought of releases in terms of
tar balls
but I'll spend some time on this.

> * Determine how C++17/Clang modules relate to modular boost releases.

Since you seem to have some information and/or thoughts about this why
not save us all a lot of time and just post them here yourself?

> * Determine whether forwarding headers fit into the very real scenario of
> a 
> world where C++17/Clang modules are pervasive.

I don't see C++17/Clang modules (whatever they might be) pervasive
in the current real world.

As far as I can tell, my proposal for "bridging headers" is the only
credible
specific one suggested so far.  I conceded that I haven't spent a lot of
time
thinking through the implications (though it seems that I've spent more than
others).  That's why I've asked for comments.  So far I haven't got any
real comment on it.  I'm still thinking about it.

Robert Ramey

--
View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/type-traits-Rewrite-and-dependency-free-version-tp4671061p4671981.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.