Niall Douglas wrote:
I'll be frank in saying that I don't believe the current proposed Boost.DI does this. Unless I and most other people here can be convinced otherwise, my personal current expectation is that the proposed Boost.DI will be rejected, but hopefully with ample feedback on what to do for a Boost.DI v2, assuming Kris has the stamina and will.
By the look of it, what's being submitted is already a v3, if not v4. It's fairly obvious that (and how) the design has evolved from runtime-based to compile-time, for instance. There's a lot of functionality there that has clearly been added to address issues arising from practical use. I'll be surprised if, after you ask a specific question, the library does not already have an answer for it.