Dave Abrahams wrote:

At Sun, 30 Jan 2011 16:43:17 +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote:

...

whereas most of the core (which is half-zillion times bigger than Boost), lives in two modules, which contain wildly different functionality, are updated by multiple people, and then built and used and tested by users all the time. So, this proves that Boost has a lot of grows ahead before having all code in place place will becomes, even in theory, a problem.

The problem isn't where the code is located, it's:

a. how much coordination is required to get things done

b. the mental drag of having to deal with all the parts of Boost that simply aren't relevant to you.

I've recommended to "chew the meat and spit the bones," when it comes to Boost since at least 2007. This approach sounds like it will make it easier to produce a tasty Boost according to one's understanding. So I'm in favor of it, though I rather expect achieving it will be difficult. This *less taxing* approach (in terms of hard drives, download times, ...) will be a breath of fresh air. -- Brian Wood Ebenezer Enterprises http://webEbenezer.net (651) 251-9384