Re: [boost] Formal Review Request: TypeErasure

Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review Request: TypeErasure
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-04 13:59:02

on Mon Jun 04 2012, "Simonson, Lucanus J" <lucanus.j.simonson-AT-intel.com> wrote:

> 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?

+0.72

> 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.

Well, yeah, but it's specifically about ad-hoc runtime polymorphism
(mouthful) which is different from "Generic interface" (could mean
static polymorphism with concepts).

> 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.

:^)

Point taken

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com