Re: [boost] Adding Loki to Boost (reprise)

From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-10 00:17:25

--- "Andrei Alexandrescu" <andrewalex_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>Hi everyone,

[...]

First two general notes: I do not think it reasonable to try to port and present loki as a single whole. Much easeir would be to present it peace by peace. I would probably start with Smart Pointers since they most dicussed and least dependent on other components (Do not want to be annoying but I would like to remind that I placed in vault area Loki style smart_ptr implementation that omit some orthgonality issues disscussed before. See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/message/25141 for my reasoning)
.

Then Singleton (though IMO it require more work) and so on.
Second note: I think loki boostification should include making it more portable. Particulaly it should work under MSVC 6.5.

>
>(3) Some components present in loki are not in boost (Singleton, Visitor,
>Multimethods, etc.) I hope it wouldn't sound like brag if I said that I
>believe these are components that, although they can be largely improved,
>are reasonably well thought-out.

I still expect a lot of discussion on every single item presented by loki. I personally am not completely sutisfied by Singleton (since I worked with it most)

>
>(4) The much discussed-upon smart pointer in loki can become a
>generalization of all boost pointers and offers new capabilities as well
>(such as easy implementation of intrusive reference counting, which is very
>important for a category of applications). To prevent the reignition of a
>discussion, my belief is that it would be best that the two kinds of
>pointers coexist, at least until template typedefs make it into the
>language. At that point, some specialized smart pointers could be changed
>into typedefs without breaking client code.

I agree with that. 

[...]

>be avoided. To bring up the thing that led the first integration attempt to
>failure, many people were convinced that loki should use mpl, while I
>believe - then and now - that it would be better for loki to rely on a much
>simpler typelist facility, and to export that typelist facility for use by
>other boost libraries and by boost users.

Given the fact that mpl is about to be review (I sincerely hope that you will participate), by the time when loki gonna be reviewed typelist presumably will be part of boost already. So you will need really good argument for different implementation (especially in boost public interface).

[...]

>Andrei
>

Regards,

Gennadiy.

_____________________________________________________________
A free email account your friends will never forget!
Get YOURNAME_at_[hidden]  at http://www.emailaccount.com/

_____________________________________________________________
Run a small business? Then you need professional email like you_at_[hidden] from Everyone.net  http://www.everyone.net?tag