On 08/05/2013 04:32 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
on Sun Aug 04 2013, Stephen Kelly
wrote: On 08/04/2013 01:31 PM, Daniel James wrote:
On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, at 01:21 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
On 08/04/2013 01:10 PM, Daniel James wrote:
On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, at 01:00 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
I don't have specific information on what minimum compiler version would enable which interdependency culling, no. I only have the hard information that increasing the requirement allows cutting the config->core dependency, and the any->static_assert dependency.
It is not unreasonable to think that the pattern ends there, so I don't think further evidence is necessary. I don't buy that. Config is a special case, since almost everything depends on it. Are you ignoring what I wrote about any->static_assert dependency which is no longer needed as a result of bumping the compiler requirement? I don't think it matters. static_assert is a tiny dependency. You miss the point entirely, repeatedly and insistently :). Stephen, I don't think you're being quite fair here. I am trying hard to see your point, and if there's something Daniel has missed, well, I guess I am probably missing it too. Could you patiently try again to spell out your point in the simplest and clearest terms possible?
Roughly backwards through what I've quoted above: Forget that static_assert is a small dependency. My point was that increasing the compiler requirement makes one library not depend on the other in at least two cases (config->core and any->static_assert, and to some extent, but not a full extent, any->type_traits). The core->config issue is not a special case, because the exact same case exists for any->static_assert. To be clear, the 'case' is that 'when we bump compiler requirements, we can remove library dependencies'. The compiler requirement bump I posted patches for has benefits and very small impact, so should be a no-brainer and independently justifiable. I haven't investigated other benefits of doing the bump, but just running 'git grep -w 1300' in boost-trunk shows me that there will be more code and workarounds to remove. How that can possibly be a can of worms I still don't know... I can just wait and see if someone commits my patches after whatever process or user surveys you want to do, then I can investigate more. Thanks, Steve.