Subject: Re: [boost] [type_erasure] Review started (July 18-27, 2012)
From: Lorenzo Caminiti (lorcaminiti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-07-23 09:09:49
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Lorenzo Caminiti <lorcaminiti_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> *** The review of Steven Watanabe's proposed Boost.TypeErasure library
> begins on July 18, 2012 and ends on July 27, 2012. ***
*** Boost.TypeErasure review ends in 5 days. Please submit your reviews :D ***
There have been interesting discussions on the library on the ML but I
have not received any official review yet :( Especially if you are a
user of Boost Any, Function, and Any Iterator, you definitely want to
take a look at Type Erasure as it generalizes solutions provided by
those other libraries.
The review manager.
> THE LIBRARY
> C++ provides runtime polymorphism through virtual functions. They are
> a very useful feature, but they do have some limitations.
> * They are intrusive. In generic programming, we can design an
> interface which allows third-party types to be adapted to it.
> * They require dynamic memory management. Of course, most of the
> problems can be avoided by using an appropriate smart pointer type.
> Even so, it still acts like a pointer rather than a value.
> * Virtual functions' ability to apply multiple independent concepts to
> a single object is limited.
> The Boost.TypeErasure library solves these problems allowing us to
> mirror static generic programming at runtime.
> Library source:
> Pre-built documentation:
> You can also download archives with pre-built documentation from:
> YOUR REVIEW
> Please submit a review to the mailing-list by replying to this email
> ("[boost] [type_erasure] Review ..." should be in the subject).
> Please state clearly whether you think this library should be accepted
> as a Boost library.
> Other questions you may want to consider:
> 1. What is your evaluation of the design?
> 2. What is your evaluation of the implementation?
> 3. What is your evaluation of the documentation?
> 4. What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
> 5. Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have
> any problems?
> 6. How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A
> quick reading? In-depth study?
> 7. Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
> Thanks in advance to all who participate in the review discussion --
> I'm looking forward to it!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk