Fix conflicting definitions from io/dynamic_io_new.hpp and toolbox/dynamic_images.hpp

[mloskot]

The problem appears to be due to the same definitions copied from one part of the library to the other.
The definitions have been shuffled to fix the compilation, but purely based on searching the code for what is used where, thus without confidence where those belong by author's intention.

Fixes #183

Tasklist

• Add test case(s) - see [cmake] Add test with all headers included in one TU #184
• Review
• Adjust for comments
• All CI builds and checks have passed

---

1. extension/toolbox/dynamic_images.hpp - removed construct_matched which is defined in io/dynamic_io_new.hpp and it is not used anywhere in extension/toolbox/*.hpp , but only in extension/io.

2. io/dynamic_io_new.hpp - removed any_image_*_t structures which are defined and used in extension/toolbox/dynamic_images.hpp, but nowhere else.

[mloskot]

@stefanseefeld this one is now ready to review.

CI buils are still ongoing for the boostorg, but my personal one has finished green https://travis-ci.org/mloskot/gil/builds/466699298

[sdebionne]

Since the old version of io/dynamic_io_new.hpp has been removed, should io/dynamic_io_new.hpp be io/dynamic_io.hpp really?
I fall into this trap to, and took the opposite direction, that is removing dynamic_io_new.hpp and including the toolbox/dynamic_images.hpp where needed.

[mloskot]

Since the old version of io/dynamic_io_new.hpp has been removed, should io/dynamic_io_new.hpp be io/dynamic_io.hpp really?

Possibly, or even io/dynamic.hpp.

removing dynamic_io_new.hpp and including the toolbox/dynamic_images.hpp where needed.

That seems like an arguable direction. The io/dynamic_io_new.hpp is a core header. The toolbox is an extension. Since extensions are optional, even those officially released, and nothing in the core should depend on extensions (there is one or two places where this policy has been broken though, I think, to be fixed).

[mloskot]

@stefanseefeld Thanks for the review.

@sdebionne Do you agree see any problems; have any objections against merging this PR? e.g. if you think it would seriously break things on your end of GIL usage.

[sdebionne]

Nope, nothing serious, go ahead! Thanks for asking!

[mloskot]

Great, merging.

...and praying