Re: [boost] [modularization] Improving/splitting up detail

2013/11/2 Ahmed Charles :

...

Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 22:34:07 +0000 From: daniel@calamity.org.uk To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] Improving/splitting up detail

On 1 November 2013 22:10, Daniel Pfeifer wrote:

...

...

boost/detail/xxx.hpp

Used by YYY and ZZZ, move to "common"

Isn't there already a dependency from YYY to ZZZ? Could we put xxx.hpp to ZZZ instead? Maybe a "common" is not even needed.

We should be careful about making changes just because they fit the current dependencies. Dependencies are not constant, we don't want to be in a situation where the dependency graph falls apart because of a future change to one of these headers. Also, if a header is in detail it should be potentially useful for future libraries which wouldn't want to depend on ZZZ (if it isn't, then it shouldn't have been put in detail in the first place).

The goal is to create two 'modules' or libraries:

We had that originally. They were called "detail" and "core". How do we describe those libraries to users? Those might be the Frequently Questioned Answers: A: It is a Boost library that you should not use. Q: If it is not useful, why does it exist? A: It is used internally by several Boost libraries. Q: If it is so useful, why should I not use it too? I prefer to have no such "detail" libraries at all. Everything that is useful to a broader audience should be in utility. Everything else should be an implementation detail of one library. When one library depends on the implementation detail of another library (ie. includes a 'detail' header from it), that is a smell, OK. But at least it is hidden from users. -- Daniel