Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.DLL formal review is ongoing
From: Antony Polukhin (antoshkka_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-07-06 16:48:58

2015-07-06 11:47 GMT+03:00 Ion Gaztañaga <igaztanaga_at_[hidden]>:

> El 04/07/2015 a las 11:19, Antony Polukhin escribió:
>> It looks like you have Boost headers and libraries of different versions.
>> Try to recompile the boost_filesystem library.
> I really like the idea of the library, and the interface seems good. I
> don't think I will have time to do a review, but my main comment would be
> related to dependencies.
> I very much like a DLL library without any dependencies on other boost
> types in its interface (boost::function, boost::filesystem). Even no
> dependencies in the implementation would be good, although this is much
> easier to deal with.
> I could think about a "core" vrsion of Boost.DLL that uses plain const
> char* names and pointers to functions and another version which could offer
> more goodies. The basic version could be easily interoperable with
> std::function/filesystem types (a simple wrapper could do the job) and it
> could be also used by other low-level boost libraries trying to load some
> DLLs.

There's no dependency on shared_ptr and boost::function if headers starting
with import_ are not used. However filesystem::path and system::error_code
are integrated tightly in core.

Your request is not the first, so probably such feature is highly required
by library users. Is it OK to leave dependencies to Boost.Predef,
string_ref and Boost.WinAPI?

Best regards,
Antony Polukhin

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