Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [typeindex v3.0] Peer review begins Mon 21st ends Wed 30th
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-04-23 10:35:59
On 23 Apr 2014 at 14:33, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
> > 2. What is your evaluation of the implementation?
> Though I'm not enthusiastic about the name of namespace boost::typeind:: but I
> don't have any much better ideas. Perhaps someone else has?
To clarify the issue to everyone else, TypeIndex is in a rather
unusual bind with regard to what namespace to use. Ideally I think
we'd all agree that boost::type_index would be best, but then one of
the issues raised last peer review was that there shouldn't be a
boost::type_index type as could conflict with std::type_index, and if
we hold that to be wise, then surely the same rationale applies for a
boost::type_index namespace as well.
So we end up with boost::typeind, which I don't think makes anyone
happy, but it is safe.
> IMO, the frequency of use of the namespace bti is probably so low that spelling
> it out is clearer, for example:
> boost::typeind::type_id<T>().pretty_name() // human readable
> > 8. Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
Thanks Paul for the vote and quick turnaround. I was worried that the
review announcement had got lost.
-- Currently unemployed and looking for work in Ireland. Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk