Boost logo

Boost :

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
> headers
> depends on that group' (and then taking advantage of the things that
> follow
> 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
> one.

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
> notice
> 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?

Robert Ramey

View this message in context:
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at