Re: [boost] Formal Review Request: TypeErasure

Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review Request: TypeErasure
From: Simonson, Lucanus J (lucanus.j.simonson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-04 13:33:54

Dave Abrahams wrote:

>> No opinion on that, but I've got another suggestion: Boost.Interface.
>> The name comes back from an abandoned lib proposal by Jonathan Turkanis:
>> http://www.cdiggins.com/bil.html

>> which revolves around duck typing (though with a different approach 
>> than Steve's lib.) "Interface" is (surprisingly) a not much overloaded 
>> word in C++.

>It's also a well-understood word in the OO community, meaning roughly the right thing.  
>I guess one question is whether we'd want to sully the whole "concept-based polymorphism" flavor with OO terminology ;-)

So is that a +0.5?

I like the name because it is sufficiently general to capture the scope of the library.  This name should help answer the " what this library is for, what is the motivation?" question Neil raised.  It is a library for defining interfaces.  Generic interfaces kind of goes without saying since it is a boost library.

I wouldn't tend to jump to the OO-specific definition of Interface when I see it as the name of a boost library, since it is one of the most general programming terms.  Boost.Algorithm, Boost.Interface, Boost.Parameter.  It seems to fit right in there.

Regards,
Luke