Subject: Re: [boost] Some statistics about the C++ 11/14 mandatory Boost libraries
From: Stephen Kelly (hello_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-14 17:29:05
Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 13 May 2015 at 14:19, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
>> >> Likewise, documenting the prerequisites is easy, if you have to do it
>> >> upfront. It's only hard if these dependencies are implied, and only
>> >> after the fact you need to re-discover them.
>> > git submodules.
>> That's only useful if you still want to work with the whole boost source
>> tree as a whole, so I see it as a transitional measure.
> Eh? Each git submodule is a direct dependency. Any git submodules
> inside those is their direct dependencies.
Enjoy handling cycles :)
Also enjoy explaining to Robert what 'cycles' and 'dependencies' are :).
Solve that problem and Boost might not be completely out in the cold as far
as C++17/Clang modules are concerned.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk