Re: [boost] [type_erasure] Review started (July 18-27, 2012)

Subject: Re: [boost] [type_erasure] Review started (July 18-27, 2012)
From: Sebastian Redl (sebastian.redl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-07-27 07:33:34

On 18.07.2012 07:13, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
> Please state clearly whether you think this library should be accepted
> as a Boost library.
Yes.
>
> Other questions you may want to consider:
> 1. What is your evaluation of the design?
I like it. Given the constraints you have to work with in C++, defining 
and using concepts is remarkably simple.
I'm a bit worried about boost::any, being in the main boost namespace, 
conflicting with boost::type_erasure::any. The presence of both means 
that I cannot do a using directive on both namespaces. On the other 
hand, I can't think of a better name than any.
> 2. What is your evaluation of the implementation?
Didn't look.
> 3. What is your evaluation of the documentation?
I liked it. Some elements appear to be undocumented (e.g. 
random_access_iterator) - these should be documented, if only with a 
note that they are not really user-facing. The abstract_printer example 
could use more comments in the code explaining what the important parts 
do and the reasoning behind them.
> 4. What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
High. I know I've written my own custom type erasures more than once. 
This library would save a lot of work there.
> 5. Did you try to use the library?  With what compiler?  Did you have
> any problems?
Didn't try.
> 6. How much effort did you put into your evaluation?  A glance?  A
> quick reading?  In-depth study?
I read the documentation thoroughly, twice.
> 7. Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
Yes, I would say so.

Sebastian