Boost logo

Boost :

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 “dangers” 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 “umbrella organisation concept
> as fitting in quite well with the idea, but I do believe that there
> should also be an œumbrella project.

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

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at