On 13 May 2015 at 17:32, Edward Diener wrote:
I did say "I don't know what this means". My further remark about "No one can be serious that Boost libraries must be designed with no dependencies on other Boost libraries" was not directed at you personally, as if you were suggesting that. I was commenting in general that whatever "a clean break" meant it could not entail having Boost libraries with no dependencies on other Boost libraries, so the issues I was discussing about some sort of automated dependency management system versus manual documentation of dependencies were still relevant in the discussion of the post.
I see now the problem. You interpreted "clean break" as a brand new reboot of Boost, as if starting from scratch. That used to be my former position, however I got enough of APIBind working on C++ 98 that a "dual use" solution is now possible - Boost libraries which can function within Boost 1.x as a C++ 98 library, and also - with no code changes needed - as a C++ 11 library in Boost 2.x. My mistake was that I thought namespace aliasing was a C++ 11 feature, but it's a 98 feature and that makes APIBind work just enough on 98 that it's feasible. That's a migration path for existing Boost libraries, in other words.
I am sorry if you saw this as a personal attack on your proposal.
No, I got confused what you were talking about. Apologies for getting annoyed. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/