Re: Revitalization

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2022-12-06 21:42:04

On 12/6/22 12:50 PM, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 2:45 PM Robert Ramey via Boost

>> Wouldn't all this discussion be irrelevant if Boost was distributed only
>> as source code and not pre-compiled libraries?
> 
> No. And no one, except you, has mentioned binaries. The entire
> discussion has only been about source.
> 

I have to confess I never understand when this question comes up.  Why 
is this "dependency" an issue.  If I'm were building an app which uses 
boost and I wanted to minimize the amount of code included I would:

a) download boost.
b) use include statements in my app to refer to top level headers used.
c) use the boost tool (I forget the name) to scan my code and list the 
required source modules
d) include those source files in my b2 or CMake file.

What could be simpler than that?

The only possible problem I can imagine is that some older library might 
not compile under a newer version of C++.  But due to the backward 
compatibility guarantee, that almost never happens.

Robert Ramey