Subject: Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boost libraries
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-13 17:49:25
On 13 May 2015 at 17:32, Edward Diener wrote:
> 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 see now the problem. You interpreted "clean break" as a brand new
reboot of Boost, as if starting from scratch.
That used to be my former position, however I got enough of APIBind
working on C++ 98 that a "dual use" solution is now possible - Boost
libraries which can function within Boost 1.x as a C++ 98 library,
and also - with no code changes needed - as a C++ 11 library in Boost
2.x. My mistake was that I thought namespace aliasing was a C++ 11
feature, but it's a 98 feature and that makes APIBind work just
enough on 98 that it's feasible.
That's a migration path for existing Boost libraries, in other words.
> I am sorry if you saw this as a personal attack on your proposal.
No, I got confused what you were talking about. Apologies for getting
-- 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