Re: [boost] [Containers Library Review] The review of the Containers library by Ion Gaztanaga starts today

Subject: Re: [boost] [Containers Library Review] The review of the Containers library by Ion Gaztanaga starts today
From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-08-03 08:41:45

On 03/08/2011 12:53, John Maddock wrote:

> Documentation from the library may be viewed online here:
> file:///M:/data/boost/sandbox/move/libs/container/doc/html/index.html

You probably meant
<http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/move/libs/container/doc/html/index.html>

> Review comments might like to answer the following questions:
>
> * What is your evaluation of the design?

It's the same as the STL, with some very welcome enhancements from 
C++0x, all of which also work with a C++03 compiler.

> * What is your evaluation of the implementation?

It's based on SGI STL code and Boost.Intrusive, both being very good.

The move emulation seems a bit fragile, but Boost.Move was accepted, so 
I guess that is ok.

I really like the fact that it avoids reinventing the wheel and reuses 
other libraries / implementations.

> * What is your evaluation of the documentation?

Pretty good, I wonder if it couldn't become my new STL reference 
documentation.

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

Move-enabled STL containers are extremely important.

Whether it's useful to have them in Boost or not is of some debate, some 
might say it's better to rely on your standard library.

I think it might be good for the people not quite ready to hop onto the 
C++0x bandwagon yet.
Plus sometimes it's good to be able to rely on a single portable 
reference implementation that actually works with stateful allocators 
etc., while it is implementation-defined whether the standard one does.

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

I ran the tests against trunk with GCC on linux without problems.
I did not, however, try to use the library.

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

A quick reading of the documentation and implementation.

> * Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?

I've been using the containers of the standard library extensively for a 
very long time, and I have followed a bit the C++0x developments.

> 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.
Those containers already exist as part of Boost.Interprocess, and I 
don't see any problem with them being promoted to their own library.