On 08/04/2013 12:57 PM, Daniel James wrote:
That obviously does not help with forward momentum in efforts like this, and I expect the boost community has a solution to that problem. Do you have any evidence for that? No one opposed your original change.
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 think what is necessary is for the boost community to pick increased compiler requirements for the purpose of proceeding with modularization, and I recommend increasing the requirement significantly in order to make most significant cuts in interdependencies.
I didn't because the benefit outweighed the potential loss (which is very small, possibly none at all). But "increasing the compiler requirement much more" sounds excessive.
Is the solution the steering committee? I ask because I'm not familiar enough with the boost community to know already. It's not really very clear what the situation is, at least to me. But I'd say that such things really should be discussed on this list first as it's a development matter.
Yes. Thanks, Steve.