From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-09 09:52:06
Toon Knapen <toon.knapen_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>
>> I agree with that; no question about it. I think a few more degrees
>> of classification than you've outlined could be useful:
>>
>> core vs. optional
>>
>> I hate "optional" but can't think of a better term right now.
>> This is the distinction between, e.g., type traits and
>> serialization
>>
>
>
>
> It's hard to draw the line between 'core' and 'optional' IMO. I guess
> 'core'-libraries would be libraries that are heavily used by other
> boost-libraries whereas 'optional' libraries are leafs in the
> library-dependency graph.
Roughly speaking, yes. Although I would mark Boost.Python as optional
even though Boost.Graph and Boost.MultiArray have subparts that depend
on it for Python bindings.
> Therefore I think it just is important to have a clearly documented
> library-dependency-graph.
Yeah, that would indeed be great. I'm not sure how to accomplish it,
though.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com