From: Jeff Garland (azswdude_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-12-01 02:02:23
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 2:56 PM Robert Ramey via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 11/28/23 4:54 PM, Jeff Garland via Boost wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 3:35 PM Robert Ramey via Boost <
> > boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
>
> > And maybe it should be more than some repos -- like an actual
> distribution
> > that could overlay a boost release with the libraries that are part of
> the
> > incubator.
>
> This conflicts with my vision of a "modular" boost. I would hope that
> if our norms about boost rules were a little more formal (Concepts) we
> could create libraries which didn't have to be part of boost to
> function. The we could just a a library at will and be on our way.
> This would work for nich libraries and questionable libraries like those
> in the incubator. The library could be dropped just by deleting it.
> This seems like it should be possible since no other library will depend
> on the inclubator/nitch library. Maybe were already there. But our
> build/test/documentation infrastructure doesn't encourage this type of
> modularity.
>
I think we can do both -- we can distribute collections while encouraging
modular libraries that can be used on their own. I think in most cases
that might still mean a tie back to boost.core, but that's small.
> It turns out that many/most of the submissions were not even close to
> boost quality. And those that were, didn't really require the incubator
> to get accepted. It also required altering the test/build/documentation
> infrastructure to work well. That is, it sort of required that "modular
> boost" be more of a reality than it currently is.
>
Interesting -- it's almost as if the authors that are gonna succeed in
boost can cut thru everything by themselves.
Jeff