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.)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk