Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] proposal and poll
From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-30 02:20:18
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Julian Gonggrijp wrote:
> Glen Fernandes wrote:
>>
>> It would be nice if both approaches (static configuration, automatic
>> identification) take into account - or allow you to specify -
>> conditional dependencies (e.g. dependencies based on identification of
>> supported or unsupported features determined by Boost.Config).
>
> In my reply to Robert Ramey just now I mentioned the possibility to
> use Boost.Bjam's <toolset> to handle this. There might be other ways
> as well. Given that it is probably feasible to account for this,
> would you vote in favour of what I propose?
>
If the result is tooling that can address the following:
- Developer can conveniently express "I care about Boost libraries L1,
L2, L3 for compilers C1, C2, C3" and the tooling replies with: "Get
L1, L2, L3, L9, L18, L27".
- If the developer instead expresses "I care about Boost libraries L1,
L2, L3 but only for compiler C1" and the tooling replies with: "Get
L1, L2, L3, L9".
Then sure: I think that would be useful to have. (Whether it is
implemented by adopting either of the two approaches).
Glen