[boost] Re: Re: Re: Typeof: Review result

From: Arkadiy Vertleyb (vertleyb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-02 10:54:30

Hi Chris,

> 1) The docs say that the BOOST_TYPEOF_INCREMENT_REGISTRATION_GROUP()
>    macro is used in .hpp or .cpp files.  I'm curious how it works in a
>    .hpp file if that file is included in multiple .cpp files.  Does it
>    create a new group for the same types in each file?
>
> 2) In the reference section, sample code for BOOST_AUTO and for
>    LVALUE_TYPEOF, the code shows a declaration for main with a
>    return type of "void", but that is not valid C++.  main must be
>    declared to return an integer.   (Yeah, I'm pedantic.)
>
> 3) In the reference section, for INTEGRAL, there is a user-defined
>    enum named "color", but it is not registered with the typeof
>    library.  However, in the tutorial section, the text reads,
>
>       "If your define your own type, the Typeof Library cannot handle
>       it unless you let it know about this type."
>
>    So either there are some cases where it's not necessary to
>    register, or perhaps the sample code is wrong?
>
>    NOTE: under the REGISTER_TYPE section, it does show an enum being
>    registered.  Thus, now I'm confused.  :)
>
>
> 4) In the reference section, LIMIT_FUNCTION_ARITY has a typo:
>
>       "... are supported for functios,"
>
>    "functions" is missing the 'n'.
>
>
> 5) The REGISTER_TEMPLATE sample code does not show how to register a
>    template with template-template parameters, but it describes it.
>    Later, under the docs for TEMPLATE there is an example.  Perhaps
>    REGISTER_TEMPLATE should indicate that an example for
>    template-template parameter usage appears there, or somehow these
>    could be tied together more.

Thanks for these suggestions.

I have to admit that, since we had committed to re-work the docs during the
review period, we did it in a haste, especially since most time was spent
setting up the Boost.Book environment.  AFAICT, Peder may still not have it
setup...

Once the review was over, and the pressure off, we kind of diverted to some
optimization opportunities that were found during the review.  This
opportunities seem so attractive (about 60% performance improvement) that we
put off the docs.  Which was probably wrong, since people continue looking
at them.

So I think we need to get back to docs and polish them ASAP.  Thanks for
this reminder :)

Regards,
Arkadiy