Re: [boost] Library Federation

Subject: Re: [boost] Library Federation
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-08-11 21:08:12

On 8/11/18 12:50 PM, Steven Watanabe via Boost wrote:

> There's nothing stopping you from using safe_numerics
> outside the boost hierarchy with a separate -I option.

Hmmm - wouldn't the require I mess with b2 switches? ouch.

> 
>> To me, this just makes it harder to use / test any new library with
>> boost without dragging in access to a bunch of stuff I may not want.  It
>> inhibits those without beam foo from running the tests etc. This is why
>> I did things the way I did.
>>
> 
>    If you're testing with `b2`, then you don't need to
> run `b2 headers` separately.

Hmmm that's news to me.  It seems that I've always had to do this but 
maybe that changed when I wasn't looking.

> How is this any easier than re-running `b2 headers`?

It's not really easier - I just prefer the result.  The redirecting is 
internal and "permanently" embedded into the file system.

>> b) It could be smarter - include only the boost include directories I'm
>> actually using - thus avoiding accidently including surprising stuff.
>>
>> c) We have tools which figure out boost dependencies automatically so I
>> don't think it would be a big stretch to do this automagically.
>>
> 
> Okay, I'm confused here.  If this is all handled
> automagically, then there's nothing absolutely nothing
> protecting you from "accidentally including surprising
> stuff"

OK - I envisioned that only those boost libraries used by the target 
would be in the include list.  One would then be be able to add any 
other "foreign" directories required by other libraries.

> I admit that the current system isn't perfect,
> but your proposal seems even more complex and
> harder to use.

LOL - of course we disagree.

Robert Ramey