Subject: Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boost libraries
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-13 19:35:51
On 14 May 2015 at 8:43, Michael Ainsworth wrote:
> The quality of C++ code in Boost is unmatched, and the Boost website
> attributes this to the review process. So while I see âdangersâ in
> modularising Boost (in that it may cause version-compatibility
> problems), I also see that it is a separate issue to the review process,
> albeit one that has an impact on it. The âumbrella organisationÂ concept
> as fitting in quite well with the idea, but I do believe that there
> should also be an Åumbrella projectÂ.
The advantage of a Boost 2.0 dependency injection design is that you,
the library user, can inject any version of a dependency you like.
Obviously injecting a version not supported by the library will fail.
Point is, the library *user* gets to choose the configuration from
the outside. The library author merely gets to choose what version
constraints they will impose (which could be to a single version, but
I would imagine users would complain).
-- 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