Subject: Re: [boost] [type_erasure] Review started (July 18-27, 2012)
From: Sebastian Redl (sebastian.redl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-07-27 07:33:34
On 18.07.2012 07:13, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
> 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?
I like it. Given the constraints you have to work with in C++, defining
and using concepts is remarkably simple.
I'm a bit worried about boost::any, being in the main boost namespace,
conflicting with boost::type_erasure::any. The presence of both means
that I cannot do a using directive on both namespaces. On the other
hand, I can't think of a better name than any.
> 2. What is your evaluation of the implementation?
> 3. What is your evaluation of the documentation?
I liked it. Some elements appear to be undocumented (e.g.
random_access_iterator) - these should be documented, if only with a
note that they are not really user-facing. The abstract_printer example
could use more comments in the code explaining what the important parts
do and the reasoning behind them.
> 4. What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
High. I know I've written my own custom type erasures more than once.
This library would save a lot of work there.
> 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?
I read the documentation thoroughly, twice.
> 7. Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
Yes, I would say so.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk