Subject: Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boost libraries
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-13 14:45:50
On 13 May 2015 at 14:36, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> On 13/05/15 02:10 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> > If Boost decides on a future build system solution, we can do better
> > than that.
> Right. But again, much as you said earlier, this needs to be a help to
> boost library authors, not liability. In other words, boost library
> authors should have the freedom to pick the tools of their choice to
> develop (including build and package) their respective libraries.
> And thus, in that new world, "if boost decides" wouldn't be valid,
> because each boot library project has to decide for itself.
I can only deliver the parts which I can deliver. I can deliver true
modularity, version specific dependencies, and dependency injection.
I currently must demand header only everything because it avoids the
build system problem.
It is up to the community to decide that. I have delivered on viable
first step on that path. The community can decide if that is
worthwhile too, or if a better solution is preferable.
I certainly think that deciding everything now is unfeasible. Decide
what there is consensus on, build on that, reconsider the remaining
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk