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: 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 
annoyed.

Niall

-- 
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ 
http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/