Boost logo

Boost Users :

From: Jim Douglas (jim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-03 15:55:37

David Abrahams wrote:
> Jim Douglas <jim_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Compared to many large-scale libraries, Boost is highly decoupled.

Such as...?

>>IMHO it is high time that someone produced a dependency graph, or each
>>library document had a "uses" section.
> Do you know about and its
> --report option?

I am aware of it, but the output is not very user friendly and AFAIK you
cannot decouple the test functions to show what is required for "normal"


>>The ultimate solution would be to have a problem oriented section in the
>>docs, i.e. if you are trying to do this, then we suggest you try these
>>libraries. If we assume that each library was constructed in order to
>>fill a need and/or solve a problem (and not just for intellectual
>>amusement) then these needs/problems could be collated into a single
> Yeah... some libraries are so general-purpose (e.g. lambda, mpl,
> preprocessor) that it's hard for me to say anything that most people
> will identify as their use case.

Does *anyone* use them?

> But if you could be more specific -- i.e. write some of it -- then
> maybe the rest of us could pick up on what you're doing and see how it
> would work.

Hmm. I'll think about that - after 1.34 is released :-)

>>4. The single word naming of the libraries can lead to ambiguities and
>>misunderstanding e.g. "serialization" means different things to
>>different people and requires a full paragraph to explain, and IMHO
>>"thread" is somewhat misleading. Other names mean nothing to me so I
>>have to go and look them up.
> What would be better, "the boost serialization of a style espoused by
> Robert Ramey library?" ;-)

LOL. But I think you get what I mean.


Boost-users list run by williamkempf at, kalb at, bjorn.karlsson at, gregod at, wekempf at