On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 12:23 PM, John Maddock
On 17/05/2015 17:50, David Stone wrote:
Conceptually, common_type is a type_trait. We should not be so quick to worship at the altar of removing dependencies that we compromise logical design or introduce code duplication. I don't think a dependency-free graph is necessarily desirable -- the whole reason we have Boost is to create reusable components.
Largely I'm inclined to agree... but I can see the attraction of a modular boost as well.
I think it's vital when we do this that the end user gets a seamless experience, so I would document the trait with the rest of type_traits docs, but with a small note that if you're downloading a modular boost (which we don't quite have yet, but we're getting there) then you must also download the common_type module.
The point about a seamless user experience is a good one. As we start to test modular distribution (in addition to the current monolithic distribution), we should include common_type as one of our use cases. --Beman