- Next message: Rob Stewart: "Re: [boost] [filesystem] temp_directory_path() behavior on Windows"
- Previous message: Stephen Kelly: "Re: [boost] [type_traits] Rewrite and dependency free version"
- In reply to: Neil Groves: "Re: [boost] To split, or not to split, or something else? RE: type_traits rewrite, modularization, dependencies, etc."
- Next in thread: Peter Dimov: "Re: [boost] To split, or not to split, or something else? RE: type_traits rewrite, modularization, dependencies, etc."
Neil Groves wrote:
> I also understand that the direction of C++ modules makes it appear that
> it would be prudent to solve these dependencies in another manner, so that
> we are ready to adopt them rather than being forced to start the
> deprecation process very later and delay the adoption of modules. We can't
> be sure we are exactly correct, but the general direction for modules is
> clear enough to motivate action now.
>
> Please feel free to enlist my help.
You might want to tell Robert that.
Thanks,
Steve.
- Next message: Rob Stewart: "Re: [boost] [filesystem] temp_directory_path() behavior on Windows"
- Previous message: Stephen Kelly: "Re: [boost] [type_traits] Rewrite and dependency free version"
- In reply to: Neil Groves: "Re: [boost] To split, or not to split, or something else? RE: type_traits rewrite, modularization, dependencies, etc."
- Next in thread: Peter Dimov: "Re: [boost] To split, or not to split, or something else? RE: type_traits rewrite, modularization, dependencies, etc."