Re: [boost] Peer Review Report for proposed Boost.TypeIndex v2.1 Nov 12th – 21st 2013

Subject: Re: [boost] Peer Review Report for proposed Boost.TypeIndex v2.1 Nov 12th – 21st 2013
From: Antony Polukhin (antoshkka_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-11-27 03:35:09

2013/11/27 Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]>

> On 26 Nov 2013 at 7:28, Andrey Semashev wrote:
>
> > > I am still struggling to understand the merit of your argument. All
> > [snip]
> > That's your assumption of its implementation. And it is one way to
> implement
> > it, indeed, but not the only one. My point is that type_infos are
> equivalent
> > only if type_info::operator== returns true and not necessarily when
> > strcmp(type_info::name(), type_info::name()) returns 0. The standard
> doesn't
> > give you that guarantee.
> > [snip]
> > The code that uses this concept is not portable and should not be
> advertised
> > in Boost, IMO.
>
> I think I now understand the source of this confusion - I see Boost
> as mostly a set of hacks around unhelpful compiler and platform
> deficiencies - it's basically a giant portability toolkit for me so I
> can write one set of code and Boost hides the evil that must go on
> underneath. I think you see Boost as more a staging ground for ISO
> standards, and hence you're thinking code ought to adhere to the
> standard rather than contemporary necessities of present toolset and
> platform exigencies.
>

I'd like to thank all the reviewers for giving advices and spending their
time on review.

I'll try to came up with a better version of TypeIndex soon.

-- 
Best regards,
Antony Polukhin