Re: [boost] [TypeIndex] Peer review period for library acceptance begins, ending Thurs 21st Nov

Subject: Re: [boost] [TypeIndex] Peer review period for library acceptance begins, ending Thurs 21st Nov
From: Gavin Lambert (gavinl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-11-13 19:05:31

On 13/11/2013 08:34, Quoth Niall Douglas:
> Boost community feedback is requested for the formal peer review of
> the TypeIndex library by Antony Polukhin. Feedback requested
> includes:
[...]
> 2. Any conditions which should be attached to acceptance into Boost
> e.g. fixes, additional testing, changes to documentation. Please be
> as specific as possible here (bullet points are good!)

There are several instances where code inside the boost namespace (and 
often within the class in question) refers to the same class with 
implicit namespace (eg. "type_info", eg. type_info.hpp:147), and 
elsewhere with explicit namespace (eg. "boost::type_info", eg. 
type_info.hpp:130).

I don't know if there's an official policy on which of these two is 
preferred (though I think I've most commonly seen the namespace 
omitted), but it seems wrong to be inconsistent about it.  Especially 
given that in type_info.hpp:73 there is, within namespace boost::detail, 
an implicit reference to *global* type_info.

And of course boost::type_info itself potentially shadows global 
type_info and/or std::type_info, which may negatively impact code that 
does "using namespace boost".  (Not that I think that should be 
encouraged, and this is not unique to this library now that eg. 
shared_ptr is in std with C++11.)  I don't have a problem with this 
personally (and it fits the "drop in replacement" goal) but I'm not sure 
where Boost policies stand on this.