[SciPy-Dev] Bundling Boost?

Charles R Harris charlesr.harris@gmail....
Thu Oct 11 09:35:19 CDT 2012


On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:10 AM, David Cournapeau <cournape@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Charles R Harris
> <charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 2:39 AM, David Cournapeau <cournape@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 6:11 AM, David Warde-Farley
> >> <wardefar@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> >> > It looks like Andreas' message didn't make it to the list, so here it
> >> > is forwarded.
> >> >
> >> > Looks like there are a few things to learn about bundling boost, but
> >> > nothing show-stopping. Of course, some of it (compiler hell) is out of
> >> > our control, but "get a better compiler" is a reasonable response on
> >> > most platforms (... maybe not Windows).
> >>
> >> Bundling all of boost is not on the table I think: we are just talking
> >> about the  math stuff which look mostly like simple templates, in
> >> which case most issues are not relevant. Using more boost should be a
> >> different discussion.
> >
> >
> > Well, I did notice more boost dependencies showing up in the include
> files.
> > C++ libraries tend to have a lot of intertwined parts, making it
> difficult
> > to tease out just that little bit you really want.
>
> I guess that's what 'well designed' mean in c++ land :)
>

I think it is called 'reusability' in c++ land :)


>
> More seriously, as long as we don't use the stuff outside math/special
> functions, it does not matter much (except for sdist size). And
> surely, smart_ptr and co can be removed in some ways or others.
>
>
Chuck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/attachments/20121011/0c09d563/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the SciPy-Dev mailing list