Subject: Re: [boost] [type_traits] Rewrite and dependency free version
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-02-03 17:34:24
Stephen Kelly-2 wrote
> The point is: either Boost is prepared for declaring 'this group of
> depends on that group' (and then taking advantage of the things that
> that declaration), or it is not.
Hmmmm - that thinking is probably a large part of the source our current
problems. I'm guessing that the idea C++17 modules will have to be refined
quite a bit before they can become useful.
> Serialization and Robert have been the biggest barriers to that because of
> the cycle. There are other cycles, but that's been the most problematic
as I said - I'm not seeing this.
> I was very sad when I saw that cycle in my analysis because I knew Robert
> would not see the problem and would block any change with all available
> energy and his fantasies about tracking header file dependencies and
> imaginary tooling.
> I tried to raise it as an issue anyway. Maybe in a year something will
> change. It took a long time for anyone in this community to take any
> of the concept of modularity at all, but now there seem to be a few people
> who get it. That took many many months though... Why is that?
Maybe your argument isn't convincing?
-- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/type-traits-Rewrite-and-dependency-free-version-tp4671061p4671993.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk