Re: [boost] Curiousity question

Subject: Re: [boost] Curiousity question
From: Gavin Lambert (gavinl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-10-13 17:45:09

On 14/10/2016 06:46, Edward Diener wrote:
> Point taken. I am considering a stand-alone cxx_dual, but its reliance
> on Boost Config is a pretty big burden to overcome unless I incorporate
> much Boost Config logic in my own code, which I am not sanguine about
> doing. Boost Config is a magnificent achievement, without which cxx_dual
> does not exist. I acknowkledge that in the doc.

Perhaps it's another argument for truly-modular Boost, where you can 
download individual libraries rather than a monolithic release.

I never really have any issues with including Boost code in desktop 
build environments, but it becomes a harder sell when writing embedded 
or cross-compiled code.  (I usually still do it anyway, typically to 
plug holes in the libc, but it requires more justification.)