Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boost libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boost libraries
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-13 17:32:27

On 5/13/2015 4:35 PM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 13 May 2015 at 15:20, Edward Diener wrote:
>
>>>>> I don't know what this means. No one can be serious that Boost libraries
>>>>> must be designed with no dependencies on other Boost libraries.
>>>
>>> I don't anybody at any stage has proposed this. This is a pure
>>> strawman by Edward.
>>
>> What is a "pure strawman" mentioned by me ?
>
> We were discussing a full fat, hard versioned dependency management
> system with external dependency injection facility. This achieves
> modular Boost.
>
> You claimed we were discussing removing all Boost dependencies from
> Boost libraries, and then made a stink about your claim which if true
> you would be right to do.

I made no such claim nor did I make a "stink" about my claim. I was 
responding to the remark:

"I think the answer is easy within the context I brought this up in:
Niall is suggesting a clean break, with only little concern for any
transition (refactoring)."

I did say "I don't know what this means". My further remark about "No 
one can be serious that Boost libraries must be designed with no 
dependencies on other Boost libraries" was not directed at you 
personally, as if you were suggesting that. I was commenting in general 
that whatever "a clean break" meant it could not entail having Boost 
libraries with no dependencies on other Boost libraries, so the issues I 
was discussing about some sort of automated dependency management system 
versus manual documentation of dependencies were still relevant in the 
discussion of the post.

I am sorry if you saw this as a personal attack on your proposal.

>
> Your claim is however complete make believe, and you are complaining
> about your interpretation of the proposal, not what is actually
> happening.

I was answering Stefan Seefeld's post, not commenting on your proposal 
of which I know nothing.

>
> I appreciate some actual documentation would be very useful. You may
> find the slides I'll presenting tomorrow of use:
>
> https://goo.gl/VHrXrj