On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 6:20 AM, <boost-request@lists.boost.org> wrote:

Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 08:20:02 -0400 From: Rob Stewart <robertstewart@comcast.net> To: "boost@lists.boost.org" <boost@lists.boost.org> Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] Improving/splitting up detail Message-ID: <57B4CEB2-A04B-4341-A613-39FB1A9D6AE3@comcast.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Nov 2, 2013, at 4:35 AM, "John Maddock" <john@johnmaddock.co.uk> wrote:

...

...

...

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

We had that originally. They were called "detail" and "core". [snip]

I prefer to have no such "detail" libraries at all. Everything that is useful to a broader audience should be in utility.

Funnily enough I was about to suggest just that: lets do away with detail and have:

core: everything in: boost/detail/ boost/pending/ boost/utility/ That has no dependencies.

What about config, or should that also go in core?

...

Utility: As above, but with dependencies (mostly to mpl/pp/type_traits).

throw_exception.hpp and dependencies should go in core too, as would a

few headers under boost/ such as cstdint.hpp etc.

That seems like a good idea provided that everything now in namespace detail remains in that namespace.

___ Rob

(Sent from my portable computation engine)