Re: [boost] [review] Formal Fast-Track review of the Boost.Functional/Factory library begins today

From: Larry Evans (cppljevans_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-17 09:20:04

On 12/17/07 04:22, John Torjo wrote:
 > Hi all,
 >
 > Today starts the formal Fast-Track review of the
 > Boost.Functional/Factory library.

[snip]

 > What to include in Review Comments
 > ==================================
 >
[snip]

 > * What is your evaluation of the documentation?

Good, however, it should include some hint about how to overcome
the Lvalue constraint on the arguments that's mentioned in the
docs:

   a0...aN
       argument LValues to a constructor of T

I'd think something like the following:

   template
   < class Source
   >
   struct
factory_fwd
: boost::forward_adapter<boost::factory<Source> >
{
     factory_fwd(void)
     : boost::forward_adapter<boost::factory<Source> 
 >(boost::factory<Source>())
     {}
};

would nicely show how the forward lib can be used to overcome this
constraint.

 > * What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the
 >   library?

Very.  I'm thinking it could be used as a replacement for Abraham's
new_ as shown in the attachment to:

http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2007/12/131251.php

I think it could also be used for similar factories which, for
example, want to decorate the source object with some hidden features,
e.g. a refcount.  The containing smart_ptr would know about that and
somehow retrieve it and avoid the extra overhead of a detached
refcount as in, for example, shared_ptr.

 > * Did you try to use the library? With what compiler?
 >    Did you have any problems?

Compiled factory.cpp and factory_fwd template with gcc-4.1 and had no
problems.

 > * How much effort did you put into your evaluation?
 >    A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study?

Quick reading.

 > * Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?

Not very.

 > And finally, every review should answer this question:
 >
 > * Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
 >    Be sure to say this explicitly so that your other comments
 >    don't obscure your overall opinion.
 >

Yes.