On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Stephen Kelly
The initial topic of this thread was 'Does Boost have modularization as a goal'. There seems to have been topic-creep.
Well, Julian asked a specific question, and he started a new thread in which to do it (albeit related to, and even linked to, some previous threads). I think his approach was appropriate. That said, I admit I'm being a bit pedantic here.
Especially if you think 'Does this library use C++11' and 'Does this library use C++14' are good questions, you should reconsider and re-frame your question in terms of what features are required from the compiler instead.
Okay, excellent point.
HOWEVER: All of this is off-topic for this thread. I'm listing it only because people are thinking too far down the line and getting stuck. I recommend dropping discussion of tooling and how to record/resolve dependencies.
I recommend you return to the question of whether Boost wants to modularize or not.
I have been taking the liberty of inferring that each positive response to Julian's question is a +1 for the overarching question of whether Boost should finish modularizing. Any responder who supports Julian's proposal but not the concept of modular Boost, please feel free to correct me.
If you do want that, then consider whether my recommendations linked in the start of the thread are specific or concrete.
Steven, you specifically mean this post, yes? http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2013/10/207384.php And the recommendations in question are to move a handful of specific header files to specific other libraries, correct? n.b. Although I hadn't previously seen the linked post (I joined the dev list rather recently), it directly supports my claim a few messages back that _tracking_ cross-library dependencies immediately gives us metrics by which to evaluate all subsequent dependency-reduction efforts. :-)