Re: [boost] [type_erasure] Review started (July 18-27, 2012)

Subject: Re: [boost] [type_erasure] Review started (July 18-27, 2012)
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-07-27 14:44:24

AMDG

On 07/27/2012 04:33 AM, Sebastian Redl wrote:
> On 18.07.2012 07:13, Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
>> Please state clearly whether you think this library should be accepted
>> as a Boost library.
> Yes.
>>
>> 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.

I'm happy to consider alternate
names, but what I have now is
the best I was able to come up with.

>> 2. What is your evaluation of the implementation?
> Didn't look.
>> 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.

Most of the built in concepts could
use a bit more documentation.

> The abstract_printer example
> could use more comments in the code explaining what the important parts
> do and the reasoning behind them.

Okay.

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe