At Fri, 8 Oct 2010 10:46:33 -0800, Robert Ramey wrote:
Boost is getting bigger and bigger. This is a good thing.
The Boost header directory and boost namespace is also getting bigger and bigger. This is starting to become a problem.
Specifically, how? I don't like it either, but I'd like to know what the real-world effects are.
I would like to see:
a) new libraries not add headers to boost directory or namespace. - with the possible exception - of "convenience headers" which include all the other headers for a library. Personally I don't like these, but since one doesn't have to use them its not a huge deal.
b) authors of existing libraries which are implemented in boost directory/namespace would be encouraged to migrate them to a lower level.
c) a couple of "catch all" namespaces/headers would be required such as "utility" for small libraries. I'm somewhat confused about "detail". If it's an implemenation detail of a particular library it should be in that library. If its a useful function which is shared by several libraries, it should be in something like: "unreviewed".
But in general it's not unreviewed code. It was usually part of a library that passed review, and then the code was factored out. So it doesn't have the same standing as a Boost library, and it may not have any user-level documentation, because... it's an implementation detail of various Boost libraries.
And of course these should have thier test and documenations in the corresponding "lib" subdirectory.
As boost get's bigger and bigger, it gets harder and harder to install just a part of it. But installing just a part of it is what users need to become confident about it.
I realize that we've been circling around this topic for a while, I just want to keep it alive.
Don't worry, Ryppl isn't dead either; it's just been quiet for a while ;-) -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com