on Mon Aug 05 2013, Stephen Kelly
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:
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...
OK.
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.
For my part, I think the changes you proposed so far should be considered uncontroversial and simply applied without further opinion-gathering. -- Dave Abrahams