Re: [review] The review of boost::container::hub starts! April 16 - April 26
Andrey Semashev via Boost <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 19 Apr 2026 23:36, Andrey Semashev wrote: > On 19 Apr 2026 22:34, Christian Mazakas via Boost wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 3:48 PM Ion Gaztañaga via Boost < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dear users and members of Boost, >>> >>> I'm proud to announce that the formal review of Joaquín M López Muñoz's >>> boost::container::hub container, for inclusion in the Boost.Container >>> library, starts today ( in my timezone ;-) ), April 16, and runs through >>> April 26. >>> >> >> I'm not sure if we've already had this discussion or not but I'd actually >> suggest considering putting Hub either in its own library or one that's >> unconditionally header-only. >> >> My concern here is that if we put Hub into Container, people looking for >> Hub and using CMake will wind up using Boost::container which I fear >> transitively carries a binary dependency. >> >> I would suppose users can instead depend on the header-only meta-target >> (Boost::headers) but I'd prefer to avoid a situation where users must do >> that. > This is solved by adding a new target to Boost.Container CMakeLists.txt, > e.g. `Boost::container_header_only` for the header-only bits. I would > argue, this would be useful regardless of `hub` being part of > Boost.Container. Some other libraries already provide more lightweight > targets where a full dependency would be too expensive for users. BTW, the same would be useful in b2, too. _______________________________________________ Boost mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://lists.boost.org/mailman3/lists/boost.lists.boost.org/ Archived at: https://lists.boost.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/UUALOMVWMIFGTBYRIO3QZDRBWNZZTWPN/