Re: [boost] Interest in (parts of) type_safe, e.g. Boost.StrongTypedef?

Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in (parts of) type_safe, e.g. Boost.StrongTypedef?
From: Klaim - Joël Lamotte (mjklaim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-06-15 10:17:22

On 9 June 2018 at 20:51, Jonathan Müller via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I've been working on https://github.com/foonathan/type_safe for the past 20
> months or so. What started as an experimenting ground for type safe
> programming facilities quickly turned into a general mix bag of utilities.
>
> However, it became my most popular project, so there is something in there
> people find really useful. And with that multiple approached me wanting to
> have it added to Boost, so here I am.
>

I would be interested if it was available in boost, I definitely have
usage of several of the provided tools.

> I do realize that not all of it is suited for Boost: some of it has overlap
> with existing libraries (e.g. optional/variant), some of it has better
> implementations elsewhere (e.g. improved integer types) and some of it is to
> novel/experimental (e.g. stuff like constrained_type).
>
> But there are some things that could be useful for Boost. I'm mainly
> thinking of the strong typedef facility.
>

It wouldn't shock me to add alternatives into boost.
However I'm not totally sure where (in which library) they should be located.
Maybe just proposing first the whole package and seeing how others
suggest to relocate some parts is good enough.

> I plan on splitting the library up into multiple parts anyway (see also
> https://github.com/foonathan/type_safe/issues/82), so please let me know
> whether there is anything you'd like to see being prepared for Boost.
>

I'm very interested in the strong typedef facility in particular yes.
But from what I read on this library, it's easier to use if you also
have the other types relating to the native or vocabulary types.
So in my opinion it would be better to not separate them.

> Thanks,
> Jonathan
>