Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [Fit] formal review - should we propose some parts to Boost.Config/Boost.Core

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [Fit] formal review - should we propose some parts to Boost.Config/Boost.Core
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-06 13:14:01

Le 06/03/2016 03:49, Glen Fernandes a écrit :
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>> Others could be considered also as function.hpp, lambda.hpp and lift.hpp, as
>> the macros are there to workaround some missing language features, but those
>> are much more specialized (Boost.Core?)
>>
> Boost.Core is where we move code from existing Boost libraries that
> enables breaking cyclic dependencies between different Boost
> libraries. I'm not so sure new libraries will need to (or want to) put
> code there.
>
>
You are right for the "reason d'être" if the Core library. IMO, they 
could be the cause of cycles because most of them are simulation of 
fundamental missing language features. It is normal that there are a lot 
of libraries that depend on them.

Currently Boost.Config contains other more basic macros [1][2] that 
could be in Boost.Core also, but this is another history.

Vicente

[1] 
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_60_0/libs/config/doc/html/boost_config/boost_macro_reference.html#boost_config.boost_macro_reference.macros_that_allow_use_of_c__11_features_with_c__03_compilers

[2] 
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_60_0/libs/config/doc/html/boost_config/boost_macro_reference.html#boost_config.boost_macro_reference.macros_that_allow_use_of_c__14_features_with_c__11_or_earlier_compilers