Subject: Re: [boost] [TTI] Review
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-17 16:15:12
On 7/17/2011 2:12 PM, Gordon Woodhull wrote:
> On Jul 17, 2011, at 1:26 PM, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Edward Diener<eldiener_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> On 7/16/2011 3:02 PM, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
>>>>>> 22. [WANT] I'd add an annex to the docs to compare this library with
>>>>>> other libraries (e.g., the "mirror" library?) that exist out there for
>>>>>> introspection (i.e., some sort of literature review).
>>>>> if there were an existing Boost library I might do it.
>>>> Why would you compare Boost.TTI only with other Boost libraries? You
>>>> should do a literature search on C++ introspection in general and
>>>> compare Boost.TTI with *all* known C++ introspection library
>>>> even/especially if they are not in Boost.
>>> I disagree with you. It is not the responsibility of a library developer to
>>> investigate and document every other possibile similar library. I can
>>> understand that if there were a C++ standard library or a Boost library
>>> which offered similar features to what another Boost library is attempting
>>> to provide, then it would be good for the developer to compare his library
>>> to what is already exists in that domain to illustrate the advantages and
>>> disadvantages of one's own approach.
>> What do other Boosters think of this?
> I would hope that out of intellectual curiosity Eddie would want to look at other solutions to the problem, especially now that his library is "complete" and accepted. But I think it is the community's responsibility to bring up comparisons. E.g. I hoped that Matus Chochlik and Matt Calabrese would bring some perspective to the review, if not actually vote.
I am perfectly willing to look at other ideas and implementations to
improve my own library in any way that I can. I am perfectly willing to
have others contribute better techniques to my library even though I
feel strongly that the design should be my own. But I do not understand
the need to comment on other libraries in the documentation for my own
unless another library already is considered mainstream and I am trying
to point out the advantages of my library as opposed to another with
much the same functionality. I really do not know the libraries by Matus
Chochlik and Matt Calabrese very well or what relationship they have to TTI.
Surely if the TTI library is well understood in its basic functionality
by clear documentation, others can compare it against other solutions
which are also documented well.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk