Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [typeindex v3.0] Peer review begins Mon 21st ends Wed 30th

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [typeindex v3.0] Peer review begins Mon 21st ends Wed 30th
From: Antony Polukhin (antoshkka_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-04-25 04:14:58

2014-04-25 2:26 GMT+04:00 Klaim - Joël Lamotte <mjklaim_at_[hidden]>:

> On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]
> >wrote:
>
> >
> > 1. What is your evaluation of the design?
> >
>
> It looks good because it seems to fill all of my needs.
> If it actually fill it's promise considering the issues with what the
> standard provide, it's very good.
>
> I was wondering though:
>  - what is the behaviours of pretty_name() when the type is in namespaces
> (there are no example of this);
>

I'll add this. Actually, it will output the type with a fully qualified
namespace.
There's also a check in tests that such classes do not collapse:

BOOST_CHECK_NE(type_id<my_namespace1::my_class>(),
type_id<my_namespace2::my_class>());

>  - what is the behaviours of pretty_name() when the type is in an anonymous
> namespace?
>    In particular when there are two types with the same name in different
> compilation units but in anonymous namespaces?
>

I'll add this case to test suite. Is there a Boost macro to ensure that
anonymous namespaces are available?

> > 3. What is your evaluation of the documentation?
> >
> >
> The comparison tables helps to get quickly an understanding of how to use
> it so it's good.
> I wonder though if someone not used to typeid(), std::type_index and
> std::type_info would understand it quickly,
> but I guess the target audience is people already using them anyway.
>
> I would like to see examples of output of name functions in the namespace,
> sub-namespace  and anonymous namespace cases.
>

Will be fixed

>
> Also, the point on shared-library boundaries is not clear to me: how does
> this library fix that issue exactly?
> A quick explaination somewhere would be good.
>

Will be fixed

> The "Example with Boost.Variant" would benefit from a short explaination of
> why there are these macros in the original boost.variant
> implementation.
>
> Unfortunately the full interface of type_info it is a bit hard to find
> because there are missing links to the actualy types on this page:
> http://apolukhin.github.io/type_index/boost/typeind/type_info.html
> Strangely enough the type_index page does have the right links:
> http://apolukhin.github.io/type_index/boost/typeind/type_index.html
> I think this should be fixed.
>
> Also, on these pages:
>  http://apolukhin.github.io/type_index/boost/typeind/stl_type_index.html
>  http://apolukhin.github.io/type_index/boost/typeind/ctti_type_index.html
> There is no documentation, so I don't know exactly what to expect from the
> naming functions (are they working across compilers too?)
>

Will be fixed

Thanks for the review!

-- 
Best regards,
Antony Polukhin