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: Dominique Devienne (ddevienne_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-04-25 04:44:55

On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Antony Polukhin <antoshkka_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 2014-04-25 11:25 GMT+04:00 Dominique Devienne <ddevienne_at_[hidden]>:
>> Or the name of a template full specialization?

You didn't reply to that one. Would we get/see the angled brackets and
commas for example? What about nested template arguments? Nested
brackets?

>> But what bothered me a little was the note about the fact that
>> pretty_name() was not consistent across platforms/compilers.
>
> Unfortunately this definitely won't be fixed in nearest releases.

OK, I understand. But please note that Boost has a history of
smoothing out compiler/platform differences, and that it's actually a
large part of its success IMHO. So this is a bit disappointing to me,
but of course it is by no means a -1 vote. I'm +1 on boost::typeindex,
definitely.

> Making a generic solution will consume too much time for each compiler and
> anyway there's no portable way of doing so for anonymous namespaces.

As noted above, I view Boost as *the* portable way to such facilities,
which of course must be implemented specifically for different
compilers (although I suspect the patterns are similar across
compilers, so an 80% solution that works on the major compilers would
be good enough for me).

> There is a an ability to make your own type_indexes, so this could be fixed
> by user manually.

But that defeats the "purpose" IMHO. Sure, we build on far fewer
compilers and OSs than Boost at large, so it might be easier to do for
us than for you, but the 80% solution I mention above could at least
be included at some point, no?

In any case, thanks for all your efforts on boost::typeindex. The doc
is quite nice already. Thanks, --DD