On 10/18/2013 02:01 PM, Julian Gonggrijp wrote:
Stephen Kelly wrote:
[...] * Phase 1 - move some files around so that the modularized repos form a mostly directed graph [...] I apologise for this mostly tangential remark, but it appears that you specifically mean a mostly *acyclic* (directed) graph.
Yes, that is what I meant. Thanks for clarifying.
I would expect that a dependency graph is always directed (even if some dependencies are mutual) and that the aim of your project is to remove cycles, so that using one node doesn't always imply that you need all other nodes as well.
Yes.
However, this conflicts with my intuition every time I read that you want to make the graph (more) "directed".
To summarise, you would help me to feel more sure that I understand what you are doing if you could confirm that by "directed" you actually mean "acyclic". Or, if that is not the case, I think I need a bit more explanation!
I can confirm that your wording is better. My aim has been to make the dependency graph more acylcic.
Please know that I totally agree with the aim to reduce dependencies between Boost libs. Regard this post as a nitpick by an idiot who works too often with graphs, if you want. :-)
Not at all! I aim for exactness where it matters. I got it wrong in this case, where it indeed matters. Thanks, Steve.